Impacts of FSC Certification in the Canadian Boreal Forest:
Exploring Partnerships between Forest Companies and Aboriginal Peoples
Prepared for the Rainforest Alliance by Sara Teitelbaum
Cover photos: The Rainforest Alliance is working throughout Canada’s boreal forests to lessen the environmental
impact of logging and ensure that it does not infringe on the rights of Aboriginal peoples. Our work to make
forestry more responsible also benefits wildlife – this chunk of wood is providing building material for beavers.
Learn more at: www.rainforest-alliance.org/resources.cfm?id=research_analyses
Impacts of FSC Certification in the Canadian Boreal Forest:
Exploring Partnerships between Forest Companies and Aboriginal Peoples
Prepared for the Rainforest Alliance
By Sara Teitelbaum
October 2009
Executive Summary
“FSC opened the door for industry and non-native organizations to see what First Nations are all about,
and how they feel about the land. It has helped to educate industry people on how First Nations see the
forest. To us, the forest is not a dollar sign, it’s home”.
-a member of the Eagle Village First Nation in Temiscamingue, Quebec
The boreal forest of Canada is a place of unprecedented importance to Aboriginal communities1, forestry
companies, and myriad wildlife species. To date, over 25 million hectares of forest have been certified to
the Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) Canadian Boreal Standards2 – just over one-fifth of the FSCcertified forests worldwide. Despite the magnitude of FSC-certified boreal forests, relatively little is
known about how FSC certification influences one of the most important and historically marginalized
forestry stakeholders: Aboriginal communities.
This research project aims to investigate the influence of FSC certification on relationships between forest
companies and Aboriginal communities in Canada’s boreal forest. Specifically, the project seeks to
document the approaches and strategies adopted by FSC-certified companies to meet Principle 3 of the
FSC standard (Recognition and respect of indigenous peoples' rights), and determine any resulting
tangible benefits to Aboriginal communities and the companies themselves.
We conducted three case studies that profiled companies managing relatively large Crown3 licenses that
are certified under FSC’s National Boreal Standard. All three companies are regarded as pro-active in the
area of First Nations relations. The first company is Tembec, with a focus on its operations in the
Temiscamingue region of Quebec. The second is Mistik Management in northwestern Saskatchewan, and
the third is Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries in northeastern Alberta. Through 20 in-person interviews
with officials from these companies and members of neighboring Aboriginal communities, we draw the
1
In this report we use the term Aboriginal to refer to the original peoples of North America and their descendents,
including both First nations (also known as ‘Indian bands’) and Métis. We use the term First Nations when referring
to a specific community of ‘Indian’ peoples.
2
FSC Canada, personal communication, October 2009.
3
Crown lands are those that are owned by federal or provincial governments. Around 89% of land in Canada is
Crown land. Licenses are awarded that allow forestry companies to manage Crown lands.
1
following conclusions about how FSC certification has influenced the relationship between forest
companies and Aboriginal peoples in these three case studies:
FSC helped leverage financial resources for Aboriginal communities
All three companies created mechanisms for providing financial or in-kind support to Aboriginal
communities for a variety of purposes, including consultation, capacity-building and economic
development. This support usually came with ‘no strings attached’ and bolstered the communities’ ability
to engage with forestry industry, other natural resource industries, and the government.
FSC led to formal agreements between forest companies and Aboriginal communities
Criterion 3.1, indicator 3.1.2 stipulates that companies obtain agreement from affected Aboriginal
communities verifying that their interests and concerns are incorporated into the management plan.
Results from these case studies indicate that the FSC process did in fact encourage companies to take
steps in this direction.
FSC helped strengthen consultation processes
Another area that was consistently targeted by the FSC assessments and audits of these three companies
was the consultation processes between the companies and Aboriginal communities. For Aboriginal
peoples, consultation is important both on the political level, where communities wish to directly
influence the nature and scope of resource management on their traditional territories, and on the
operational level, where communities (especially families active on the land), wish to have their resource
needs respected and protected.
FSC helped raise awareness of Aboriginal issues within forest companies
Interview respondents from forestry companies and Aboriginal communities described FSC as having
helped raise awareness of Aboriginal issues within the forest company milieu.
FSC played a key role in identifying weaknesses vis-à-vis relationships with Aboriginal communities and,
through annual audits, keeping these issues on the radar screens of companies
One of the most valuable contributions of the FSC process was its ability to identify problematic issues –
or areas needing improvement – and provide a source of ongoing surveillance of these issues through the
issuing of corrective actions requests (CARs). Through the annual audit process, there was a built-in
verification process that ensured that the company had made sufficient progress to address these issues.
FSC had limited influence when it came to transfer of information about sites of special cultural,
ecological, economic or religious significance to Indigenous peoples
The FSC National Boreal Standard stipulates that “sites of special cultural, ecological, economic or
religious significance to Indigenous peoples” be protected (criterion 3.3). While all three companies
described themselves as open to protecting these types of values, for example burial sites or specific
hunting sites, the three companies had varying levels of success in acquiring Aboriginal values
information for the purposes of forest management planning. For many communities, this information
was considered the property of the community and was not readily shared with forest companies.
FSC has helped structure internal company policies in the area of Aboriginal relations
2
A common observation amongst industry interview respondents was the notion that FSC had helped their
company to structure their internal policies and procedures vis-à-vis Aboriginal relations. Requirements
to demonstrate progress in meeting specific criteria and indicators drove companies to better identify the
roles and responsibilities of their employees with regards to Aboriginal communities, formalize certain
relationships with Aboriginal communities, especially at the political level, and strengthen their policies
related to Aboriginal communities.
Based on the above findings, we make the following recommendations for those embarking on
partnerships between forest companies and Aboriginal communities:
1. Groundwork laid by companies prior to the certification process facilitates FSC certification
In the case of all three companies, considerable work had already been undertaken to build relationships
with Aboriginal peoples prior to engaging in the FSC certification process. Interview respondents from
all three companies described their company as committed to working with Aboriginal communities
regardless of the FSC process. While this previous commitment is not a requirement for successful FSC
certification (some companies come to the FSC process with virtually no experience working with
Aboriginal communities) it certainly helped these companies to meet the requirements of Principle 3.
2. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to working with Aboriginal communities
Interview respondents from the three forest companies emphasized the importance of taking a
differentiated approach with each of the Aboriginal communities in their region. The Aboriginal
communities in these regions had their own set of priorities and objectives when it came to dealing with
forest companies. For example, some were more oriented towards protection of Aboriginal land use
values, others towards ecotourism and others towards employment in the forest industry (clearly, there
were also differences within communities). Furthermore, the form of consultation that each Aboriginal
community desired was also different. Programs and policies developed around requirements of the FSC
process were therefore not necessarily applicable in a uniform manner across all of the Aboriginal
communities in and around a single forest management license.
3. Consistent and frequent lines of communication are essential
Both Aboriginal and forest company respondents emphasized the need to establish clear and frequent
lines of communication between the two parties. Maintaining consistency in terms of the people working
on the ground was helpful both for building meaningful relationships and improving accountability in
terms of the types of commitments that were made. The frequent turnover of political leadership in many
Aboriginal communities made it particularly important to set up clear and multiple lines of
communication. Several of the forest companies had invested considerable resources in the Aboriginal
relations aspect of their company and this was considered a key to their success.
4. Be aware that FSC is not necessarily well known nor highest priority for Aboriginal communities
Several Aboriginal respondents observed that FSC is not necessarily well-known amongst Aboriginal
communities. In part, this was attributed to the presence of more pressing issues in Aboriginal
communities, such as those relating to housing, unemployment, and other social issues. The frequent
turnover of political leadership within communities was cited as another constraint. They felt that FSC
would have more influence and be a more powerful tool if community members understood the standard,
including specific criteria and indicators and the extent of their application. There is therefore work to be
done, both by forest companies and others, to raise awareness of FSC amongst Aboriginal communities.
3
5. Aboriginal communities may require resources and capacity-building in order to prepare their position
vis-à-vis the certification process
For Aboriginal communities, participating in the FSC process requires considerable work on the ground.
In order to properly gauge their community’s perspective on forest company performance, there may be
community consultation to be undertaken. There may also be different ecological analyses required on
their part – for example regarding high conservation value forests, the intersection of Aboriginal land use
and forestry activities and the analysis of forest management plans more generally. Forest companies
should therefore be aware that engaging Aboriginal communities in the FSC process may require not only
time, but also the sharing of certain resources – whether in the form of financial resources, technical
expertise or other types of support.
6. Conformance with Principle 3 is best approached as a ‘work in progress’
Unlike some parts of the FSC standard where conformance is relatively straightforward, the criteria and
indicators relating to Aboriginal peoples are highly complex. The FSC standard requires forest companies
to actively engage with numerous fundamental issues of a political nature, such as respect for legal and
customary rights, respect for Aboriginal resources and tenure rights, and respect for traditional ecological
knowledge. Interpretation of these issues is challenging, both for forest companies and Aboriginal
communities, and is likely to change over time. The structure of the FSC process – with annual audits and
5-year reassessments – is such that Aboriginal communities have an opportunity to revisit outstanding
issues or identify new issues as they arise. It is therefore highly likely – and this was seen in the three case
studies – that certain issues will be difficult to resolve outright and will therefore continually require work
on the part of forest companies. It is therefore perhaps best for forest companies to approach conformance
with Principle 3 as a ‘work in progress’ rather than a clear finish line.
About the Rainforest Alliance
The Rainforest Alliance promotes standards for sustainability that conserve the environment and ensure
the well-being of workers and their communities. The Rainforest Alliance was founded in 1987 and has
pioneered a certification system that provides an incentive for companies and producers to develop their
businesses in ecologically sustainable and socially beneficial ways. Accredited by the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC), its SmartWood program has certified over 46 million hectares of forestland in 66
countries. To date, SmartWood has certified over 23 million hectares in Canada, most of which fall in the
boreal forest zone.
In agriculture, The Rainforest Alliance acts as secretariat of a group of non-profit organizations known as
the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN). Each SAN member, presently situated in Latin America but
poised to incorporate African and Asian organizations as well, certifies farms in its country and
contributes to developing the Sustainable Agriculture standard. Agricultural certifications have benefited
one million farmers and have a value of USD1 billion at retail value. Finally, in addition to its work in the
fields of forestry and agriculture, the Rainforest Alliance has trained over 1,300 tourism entrepreneurs in
best practices.
4
Introduction
Canada’s boreal forests are vast, covering almost 4 million square kilometers. These forests cut a wide
swath across the country, stretching from the Yukon in the northwest to Newfoundland in the east. They
are characterized by the predominance of coniferous trees (spruce, fir, larch and pine) and tolerant
hardwoods (aspen, birch and poplar). The cold temperatures and nutrient-poor soils that typify the boreal
forest biome result in slow growing but high-quality trees. The boreal forest is adapted to large-scale
natural disturbances such as fire, insects and windthrow.
It is estimated that there are approximately 2.5 million people living within Canada’s boreal forest, of
which close to 1 million are of Aboriginal descent.4 The population density in these regions is low – much
of the boreal forest has a population density of 0.1-0.9 persons/square kilometer.5 While timberharvesting represents an important source of employment for boreal communities, these forests provide
myriad other benefits, such as firewood, game, pelts, fish and berries, building materials and wage-related
opportunities in recreation and tourism. Aboriginal peoples, who have practiced subsistence activities in
the boreal forest since time immemorial, have a particularly strong connection to the forest and to these
non-timber activities.
A growing debate is underway about future development in Canada’s boreal forest. Canada is in the
unique situation that the vast majority of forests are publicly owned. Forests, like most other natural
resources, fall under the jurisdiction of Canada’s ten provinces. The growing pace of development – in the
form of industrial forestry, oil and gas, mining and hydroelectricity, coupled with a heightened awareness
of the role of the boreal forest in conserving global biodiversity and mitigating climate change – has
raised the public profile of the boreal forest. Environmental groups are calling for the creation of vast and
contiguous protected areas in the boreal forest. Aboriginal groups living in the boreal forest, many of
which have not signed treaties, are urging the government to address their outstanding land claims and/or
institute co-management type arrangements where they are equal partners in land use decision-making.
Meanwhile forest companies and resource developers continue to lobby for greater access to natural
resources, arguing that the employment opportunities created by these activities are essential for ensuring
the survival of many industry-dependent communities in the boreal forest.
Forest certification, the topic of this research report, is seen by many as one strategy with the potential to
improve forest management practices and help address the complex social issues that characterize forest
use and governance in the boreal forest. Forest certification is a voluntary process adopted by forest
companies whereby they adhere to a specific set of forest management standards, which normally
includes ecological, social and economic criteria. Conformance with these standards is verified by an
independent third-party organization. Forest companies operating in Canada have been particularly proactive in pursuing forest certification. As of June 2009, Canadian forests account for over half of certified
forests in the world adhering to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards.6
Yet, despite the growing prominence of forest certification, there is surprisingly little information
available charting the on-the-ground ramifications of forest certification either from an ecological or
socio-economic perspective. This represents an essential step towards evaluating the effectiveness of
forest certification in confronting many of the challenges associated with implementing sound forest
management. The Rainforest Alliance has therefore launched a project aiming to describe some of the
outcomes of one particular forest certification system, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), in Canada’s
boreal forest.
4
Natural Resources Canada. 2007
Natural Resources Canada. 2001
6
Forest Stewardship Council. 2009
5
5
This report tackles the role of FSC in encouraging partnerships and/or relationships between forest
companies and Aboriginal communities. FSC is unique amongst certification standards in that it includes
a specific principle (with corresponding criteria and indicators) relating to Aboriginal rights. These
criteria and indicators require companies to demonstrate that they are respecting Aboriginal interests
towards the forest, and in the case of the Canada’s National Boreal Standard, include requirements around
consultation, economic development, capacity-building and protection of Aboriginal values. FSC is
widely seen as the most promising certification standard for the promotion of Aboriginal interests.7
Project Objectives and Methodology
This research project aims to investigate the influence that the FSC certification process is having on the
character of relationships between FSC-certified forest companies and Aboriginal communities in
Canada’s boreal forest. Specifically, the project seeks to profile three forest companies that are described
as pro-active in the area of Aboriginal relations, in order to highlight a) the types of approaches and
strategies being adopted by these companies in their pursuit of positive relationships with Aboriginal
communities, b) the types of results and “tangible benefits” coming out of these relationships both for
forest companies and Aboriginal communities and c) the particular influence that the requirements of the
FSC certification process are having on the character of these relationships.
The focus of this study is on three different FSC-certified forest companies. All three manage relatively
large Crown licenses that are certified under FSC’s National Boreal Standard. The first company is
Tembec, with a focus on its operations in the Temiscamingue region of Quebec. The second is Mistik
Management in northwestern Saskatchewan and the third is Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries in
northeastern Alberta (see Map 1). The three companies were selected based on the criteria of a) operating
in the boreal forest, b) holding a Crown land license and c) the perception (gleaned from discussions with
stakeholders in the forest industry, Aboriginal Peoples and certification organizations) of being pro-active
in the area of Aboriginal relations. Tembec and Alberta-Pacific were both certified by the FSC-accredited
Rainforest Alliance.
7
Ecotrust Canada and National Aboriginal Forestry Association 2002
6
Map 1. Locations of Alberta-Pacific, Mistik and Tembec forest licenses.
7
The main method of data gathering was through face-to-face interviews conducted during site
visits to each of the certificate areas of the three forest companies. Interviews were set up with
forest company employees and representatives from Aboriginal communities. In all three
certificate areas there were numerous Aboriginal communities residing within and adjacent to the
certified forest area. It was not possible to interview representatives from all Aboriginal
communities; therefore in each case study area one or two Aboriginal communities were
contacted. Site visits took place during October and November of 2008. In addition to Aboriginal
and company interviews, interviews were conducted with several individuals involved with the
FSC process – including staff at the FSC national office and auditors with third-party certification
organizations. A total of 20 interviews were conducted, most of which were face-to-face and a
handful of which were conducted by telephone8. This interview data was bolstered by a print and
web-based literature review on the subject of FSC and Aboriginal communities in the boreal
forest.
This report is divided into 4 main sections. The first section sets out the broad context for this
study, through a description of the role and relationship of Aboriginal peoples and the forest
industry in Canada’s boreal forest. The second section presents information about the Forest
Stewardship Council and the National Boreal Standard and goes on to describe other research on
the role that FSC has played in fostering Aboriginal – industry partnerships. This is followed by a
synopsis of the overall findings from the three forest company profiles, followed by a section
devoted to each forest company case study. The report ends with a set of lessons learned and
some broad conclusions.
Overview of Aboriginal Communities and their Relationship to the Forest Sector in
the Canadian Boreal Forest
There are more than 600 Aboriginal communities living in Canada’s boreal forest. The term
Aboriginal is the collective term used to describe the original peoples of North America and their
descendants9. It includes First Nations (also known as ‘Indian bands’), Métis (descended of
marriages between First Nations and white persons) and Inuit peoples. Amongst the Aboriginal
nations living in the boreal forest are the Cree, Innu, Montagnais, Mi’gmaq, Ojibway, Algonquin,
and Dene.
Historically, many of the Aboriginal peoples living in the boreal forest were semi-nomadic,
organized in extended family units and moving about large hunting territories according to a
seasonal cycle of hunting, fishing and gathering activities. The arrival of Europeans brought
many changes to the Aboriginal way of life, in the form of new diseases, wars, and a gradual
encroachment on traditional lands from activities such as agriculture and logging. While these
influences were felt later in the boreal forest than in the mixed-wood forests further south,
settlement and commercial resource extraction was present from the 19th century onward.10
Aboriginal peoples in the boreal forest were also active participants in the fur trade, which had
the result of reorienting Aboriginal activities and travel patterns around trading posts set up by
French and English traders. While the fur trade provided Aboriginal peoples with new commodity
8
Interviews were conducted with staff and members of the following companies and communities:
Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc., Bigstone Cree Nation, Eagle Village First Nation, Long Point First
Nation, Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation, Meadow Lake Tribal Council, Mistik Management Ltd., Tembec
Inc., Waterhen Lake First Nation
9
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2009
10
For an overview of early boreal timber harvesting, see Burton et al. 2003
8
goods, including clothing, alcohol and firearms, it also created a new level of dependence for
Aboriginal peoples.
As colonialism and settlement progressed, Aboriginal peoples in many parts of Canada (with the
exception of modern day British Columbia and Quebec) were driven to sign treaties, including
the negotiation of reserves for settlement. The treaties were intended to extinguish Aboriginal
rights to the land and provide compensation in the form of land, money, and supplies. Although
stipulations were included for the protection of broader hunting and fishing rights, these rights
were often ignored and/or restricted to “unoccupied” lands.11 Reserve lands negotiated in treaties
were most often very small.
It therefore became increasingly difficult for Aboriginal peoples to practice their traditional
activities without disruptions from settlement, resource development, or later, restrictive
provincial land use regulations. The system of residential schools, set up in the 19th and 20th
centuries created a further rupture with the traditional culture as younger generations were forced
to spend most of the year living away from their families and therefore failed to learn many of the
important land-based skills.
Despite this history, land-based activities remained important to Aboriginal peoples from a
cultural, social and economic perspective, and this continues to be the case. Aboriginal peoples
throughout the boreal forest actively hunt, trap and fish as a source of food, and to a lesser extent
as a source of livelihood. This is particularly true for more northern communities. While most
families now live permanently on reserves or in settlements, they continue to spend time in family
camps, particularly during seasonal hunting events. Elders in these communities are considered
particularly important as the holders of skills and knowledge of the traditional way of life.
Meanwhile, Aboriginal communities are dealing with a host of other social and economic
problems, including high unemployment rates (often upwards of 80%), alcohol and drug abuse,
and health problems.12
For their part, forestry activities have been present in Canada’s boreal forest in some form since
the late 19th century, at least in the more productive southern regions. Commercial forestry began
in earnest in the 20th century and became increasingly mechanized from the 1950’s onward.
Provincial governments have facilitated the development of commercial forestry through the
allocation of large tracts of Crown forest to private forest companies. Analysts typically
characterize a series of policy stages in Canadian forestry context, described by Howlett and
Rayner as regulation, sustained yield, multiple use and the current era of sustainable forest
management13. Over the course of this evolution, the responsibilities placed on the private forest
companies that hold Crown tenures have increased. In addition to paying stumpage payments in
return for timber harvesting, forest companies are also expected to undertake forest management
planning, public consultation, regeneration activities, and in many cases processing of timber.
The planning process has also become increasingly complex, as companies are required to
integrate an increasing number of social and ecological values and respond to a growing number
of stakeholder concerns.14
The relationship of Aboriginal communities to the forest industry has historically been marked by
exclusion rather than participation. While there are hundreds of communities throughout the
11
ibid
Stevenson and Webb 2003
13
Howlett and Rayner 2001
14
ibid
12
9
boreal forest that depend on the forest industry as the mainstay of their economy, these
communities have tended to have low Aboriginal populations. These communities have also
benefited from better services and amenities than most Aboriginal reserves and settlements. In the
past, few residents of Aboriginal communities found stable employment in the forest industry and
those jobs that were forthcoming were often the least skilled and lowest paid.15
There are also long-standing concerns expressed by Aboriginal peoples and organizations about
the impact of forest industry activities on their land-based activities. They describe many negative
impacts from industrial forestry, including the loss of habitat and wildlife, negative health
impacts from the use of herbicides, and increased competition from non-native hunters due to
new road access created by the forest industry.16 Furthermore, until recent decades Aboriginal
peoples were rarely consulted in forest management planning or for land use decisions regarding
their traditional territories. For some Aboriginal groups this situation culminated in confrontation
in the form of occupations, roadblocks and court actions, as they sought to demonstrate their
opposition to forestry activities and their frustration with the lack of consultation on the part of
the governments. Examples include the Teme-Augama Anishnabe in the Temagami region on
Ontario, the Haida on the Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia, the Barriere Lake First
Nation in Quebec and the Wolf Lake and Lac Simon First Nations also in Quebec. In many cases,
these actions had a strong political dimension, as Aboriginal peoples sought to signal their desire
to engage in political negotiations with governments over outstanding land rights.
Aboriginal groups have also used the courts to assert their treaty and Aboriginal rights. Landmark
rulings such as Delgamuukw (1997), Taku River (2004), and Haïda Nation (2004) served to
clarify the nature of Aboriginal title as enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982, and established
the duty to consult and accommodate in cases where Aboriginal title and rights have not been
proved in court. These rulings had the result of strengthening government obligations towards
Aboriginal peoples where natural resource decisions are concerned.17 While there remains
dissatisfaction with the pace of provincial policy formulation vis-à-vis these rulings, there are
indications that government and industry have taken steps to improve mechanisms for Aboriginal
consultation.18 For example, in most provinces, consultation with Aboriginal communities on
their traditional lands has become a requirement of forest management planning. Some provinces
have developed consultation guidelines, or provide funds for joint planning, or capacity building.
There are also tenures being made available to Aboriginal communities in some provinces.19
However, while there has been improvement, Aboriginal peoples continue to express concerns
about the extent and quality of consultation around forest management planning. Aboriginal
communities continue to face barriers in bringing their values to the forest management planning
process, in part due to the technical nature of planning processes, restrictive regulations around
forest management planning, and a lack of resources and capacity within Aboriginal communities
themselves.20 Furthermore, leadership in Aboriginal communities is not necessarily able to
prioritize forestry issues due to the presence of more pressing issues such as housing, health and
education. All of this creates a certain amount of political uncertainty for forest companies
operating in the boreal forest.
15
St-Arnaud et al. 2005
Stevenson and Webb 2003
17
Parsons and Prest 2003
18
National Aboriginal Forestry Association 2003
19
National Aboriginal Forestry Association 2007
20
Aboriginal Strategy Group 2006
16
10
On the economic front, Aboriginal peoples are defining a new role for themselves vis-à-vis the
forest sector. Forest industry related employment is on the rise within Aboriginal communities, in
part fueled by the pressing need for employment in these communities and the demographic
reality of a rapidly growing population. Forest companies have also showed themselves to be
more pro-active in creating partnerships with Aboriginal communities. A recent study of 14 forest
companies found a 75% increase in the total number of economic and employment initiatives
directed at Aboriginal peoples between 1996 and 2006.21 The study also saw a considerable
increase in co-management arrangements and industry-Aboriginal partnerships. Although it is
estimated that less than 5% of the on-reserve labour force is involved in forestry, there are also a
growing number of small-scale entrepreneurial initiatives underway whereby Aboriginal peoples
are starting their own businesses, securing financing, and hiring their own community members
to work for them.22
Overview of Literature on FSC and Aboriginal peoples in the Boreal Forest
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an international organization formed in 1993 to
promote “environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable management
of the world’s forests.”23 FSC coordinates a global forest certification system based on a common
set of 10 principles and 56 criteria that encompass environmental, social and economic aspects of
forest management. These form the basis for regional standards across the world, which are
developed at a national or subnational level. An independent third-party certifying body which is
accredited by the FSC evaluates companies seeking FSC certification. Certificates do not cover
all of a company’s operations, but rather a specific geographic area. The FSC system is set up to
encourage continuous improvement on the part of companies. Conditions or Corrective Action
Requests (CARs), as they are called, can be issued by auditors who identify non-compliances
with FSC requirements. Major CARs must be met before the certificate is issued and minor
CARs must be met within one or exceptionally two years time. Annual audits are performed,
whereby auditors return to a certificate area in order to follow-up on CARs and investigate any
new issues that may have emerged.
In Canada, there are 4 different FSC regional standards. These are the National Boreal Standard,
the Great-Lakes St-Lawrence Standard, the Maritime Standard and the British Columbia
Standard. A national organization called FSC Canada coordinates standards development. Canada
is unique in that in addition to social, economic and environmental membership chambers, a
fourth chamber called the Indigenous peoples chamber was formed. This allows FSC to solicit
significant input from Indigenous peoples in the creation of regional standards.24
Principle 3 of Canada’s National Boreal Standard, with an associated 4 criteria, deals explicitly
with Indigenous relations. These include the stipulation that Indigenous communities provide free
and informed consent to a forest company operating on their traditional lands. The full list of
criteria related to Principle 3 is described below in Table 1.
21
Aboriginal Strategy Group 2008
Stevenson and Webb 2003
23
FSC website. www.fsccanada.org
24
FSC 2000
22
11
Table 1. Criteria related to Principle 3 of the National Boreal Standard
Principle 3. The legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to own, use and manage their
lands, territories, and resources shall be recognized and respected.
Criterion 3.1 Indigenous peoples shall control forest management on their lands and territories
unless they delegate control with free and informed consent to other agencies.
Criterion 3.2 Forest management shall not threaten or diminish, either directly or indirectly,
the resources or tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Criterion 3.3 Sites of special cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance to
Indigenous People(s) shall be clearly identified in cooperation with such Peoples, and
recognized and protected by forest managers.
Criterion 3.4 Indigenous Peoples shall be compensated for the application of their traditional
knowledge regarding the use of forest species or management systems in forest operations.
This compensation shall be formally agreed upon with their free and informed consent before
forest operations commence.
There are criteria and indicators relevant to Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests within other
principles; for example, the need to adhere to Canadian and international law, issues related to
high conservation value forests, ecological monitoring, and workers rights.
FSC has widely been described as one of the most promising certification systems for Indigenous
Peoples.25 While it has been recognized that FSC certification cannot solve the political issues
faced by Aboriginal peoples, it has been described as a standard that “can facilitate workable
relationships between Indigenous communities and forest companies”, and can lead to
“innovations in dealing with Aboriginal and treaty rights, traditional land use and perhaps other
key issues”26 (6). Ovide Mercredi, former chief of the Assembly of First Nations, articulates some
of the optimism that Aboriginal peoples have expressed towards the FSC process.
The Forest Stewardship Council was founded to help change the status quo. It
recognized that the best way to secure the involvement of Indigenous communities
was to seek their help in reversing the tide of damaging forest practices by actively
working towards a common objective: to change forestry operations in ways that
ultimately end the sad legacy of trampling on the rights and interests of Indigenous
Nations. The FSC understands that Indigenous Nations are often the first to bear the
brunt of poor industrial forestry practices and the last to see any tangible benefits27
(p.1).
There has been relatively little research investigating specific outcomes related to FSC
certification for Aboriginal peoples in the Canadian boreal forest. In 2006, the Aboriginal
Strategy Group published a report describing the results of an exploratory dialogue with twelve
representatives from Aboriginal organizations in Ontario assessing their satisfaction with FSC
25
Ecotrust Canada and National Aboriginal Forestry Association 2002
ibid
27
ibid
26
12
certification.28 The discussion revealed mixed views. On the positive side, participants expressed
a preference for FSC over other certification schemes due to the perception of a stronger
commitment to Indigenous rights. They felt that FSC had increased dialogue between Aboriginal
communities and forest companies. Participants also observed that FSC-certified forestry
companies showed commitment towards creating economic opportunities for Aboriginal
communities. Agreements between forest companies and Aboriginal communities was another
benefit of FSC, and in cases where agreements were negotiated and honoured, participants
described “significant benefits to First Nation capacity, mutually beneficial project outputs and a
continual strengthening of relationships” (p.6).
According to participants, key factors for industry with regards to building and maintaining good
relationships with Aboriginal communities included frequent communication on a breadth of
issues and the participation of upper management. On the Aboriginal side, key factors included an
effective and engaged chief and council, a skilled and experienced lands and resources staff
person, and an engaged and supportive community. Other research echoes the observation that
effective internal governance within Aboriginal communities and the presence of community
capacity are both key factors in allowing communities to participate in the certification process
and leverage FSC as a tool to pursue community objectives.29
On the downside, participants pointed to a lack of consistency from industry leaders in honoring
agreements, for example revenue-sharing agreements or capacity-building contributions. This
was especially true of verbal and “handshake” agreements. In some cases, money promised was
insufficient, in other cases money was not delivered or had strings attached that made it hard for
communities to accept. The difficult economic situation faced by the forest industry was seen as a
contributing factor, as was the frequent turnover of industry leadership. Another weakness
identified by participants was a lack of awareness of FSC and its implications amongst Aboriginal
communities, and a corresponding lack the capacity to meaningfully participate in the
certification process.
Participants in this study, as well as other researchers, have raised the issue of how FSC
certification intersects with governmental processes. A guide to FSC certification for Aboriginal
peoples makes the point that FSC will not solve the issues faced by Aboriginal peoples vis-à-vis
resource use on their traditional territories because certification is not a substitute for the full
recognition of treaty and Aboriginal rights.30 Similarly, Tollefson argues that regional standards
do not replace government regulation, and the “certification should not be an excuse for
governments to retreat from treaty negotiations”. 31
Synthesis of Case Study Results
The following synthesis describes the main research results from a more detailed analysis of three
partnerships between forest companies and Indigenous communities, which follow in the next
section. The three case studies center on partnerships involving Tembec in Temiscamingue,
Mistik Management in Saskatchewan and Alberta Pacific (Al-Pac) in Alberta. The specific focus
of this section is the influence FSC certification had on the efforts of these companies to improve
relationships, build partnerships and create positive impacts for Aboriginal communities.
28
Aboriginal Strategy Group is a consulting firm specializing in Aboriginal forestry issues based in Ottawa,
Ontario.
29
Ecotrust Canada and National Aboriginal Forestry Association 2002 and Tollefson 2001
30
ibid
31
Tollefson 2001
13
FSC helped leverage financial resources for Aboriginal communities
All three companies created mechanisms for providing financial or in-kind support to Aboriginal
communities for a variety of purposes, including consultation, capacity-building and economic
development. In the case of Mistik, this came in the form of a financial contribution calculated
according to timber volumes harvested within community boundaries on an annual basis. In the
case of Tembec, financial support was negotiated as part of formal written agreements covering a
broad range of forestry-related issues. Support from Tembec was used by Aboriginal
communities to, among other things, bolster their own small forestry departments, buy equipment
necessary for land mapping, and continue traditional land use studies. According the Aboriginal
interviewees, this financial support is critical for their dealings with the forest industry, with other
natural resource industries and with the government as well. In the case of Al-Pac, support was
in-kind, through a policy of secondment or ‘loaning’ of employees to Aboriginal communities.
Interestingly, the three companies offered financial and in-kind resources with few strings
attached. It was left up to the communities to decide how these resources would best be allocated
and there was no requirement to spend them on forestry-related projects. Although these financial
agreements were not necessarily a direct result of FSC requirements, they were nonetheless
crucial in allowing these companies to meet indicators around ‘obtaining agreement’ (criterion
3.1, indicator 3.1.2) and “developing financial, technical and logistical capacity” (criterion 3.1,
indicator 3.1.3). Furthermore, FSC provided an important impetus in those cases where no
agreement had been reached but where the Aboriginal community desired one (for example
Corrective Action requests issued to Long Point and Lac Simon First Nations in the Tembec case,
shown in Table 3).
FSC led to formal agreements between forest companies and Aboriginal communities
Criterion 3.1, indicator 3.1.2 stipulates that companies obtain agreement from affected Aboriginal
communities verifying that their interests and concerns are incorporated into the management
plan. Although there is not a strict obligation for forest companies to negotiate formal agreements
with Aboriginal communities, results from these case studies indicate that the FSC process did in
fact encourage companies to take steps in this direction. For example, in both the Tembec and AlPac FSC assessments, the lack of agreements with specific Aboriginal communities became the
substance of a corrective action request. By the first or second annual audit, both companies had
made significant progress towards negotiating new agreements with Aboriginal communities.
Community representatives interviewed described these agreements as key to building capacity
within their community to participate actively in the forest management consultation process.
FSC helped strengthen consultation processes
Another area that was consistently targeted by the FSC assessments and audits of these three
companies was the consultation processes between the companies and Aboriginal communities.
Consultation is one of the key areas of interaction and negotiation between the company and
Aboriginal peoples. For Aboriginal peoples, consultation is important both on the political level,
where communities wish to directly influence the nature and scope of resource management on
their traditional territories, and on the operational level, where communities (especially families
active on the land), wish to have their resource needs respected and protected.
14
Although the types of consultation mechanisms in use varied from one company to the next, all
three were issued corrective action requests requiring them to improve certain aspects of
consultation processes. The process at Tembec typically begins with pre-consultation meetings,
whereby the company presents potential harvesting sites, and Aboriginal communities can
suggest changes before inventories and other investments are made. Later, specific agreements
are made to mitigate impacts on Aboriginal resources (for example larger buffers on waterways,
adoption of specific harvesting techniques, or protection of certain sites). Al-Pac responded to
FSC auditors’ findings of weak communication with Aboriginal communities and a low
Aboriginal awareness of Al-Pac’s 2004 management plan by diversifying consultation
mechanisms and instituting an Aboriginal Consultation Policy, which sets out a formalized
process of consultation with communities, including roles and responsibilities of Al-Pac
employees.
Although some interviews revealed higher expectations amongst Aboriginal peoples than the
forest industry in terms what could be achieved by these processes, FSC nonetheless required
these companies to continually engage with Aboriginal communities in search of more mutually
satisfactory outcomes. This resulted in the continual refinement of consultation processes by
these companies.
FSC helped raise awareness of Aboriginal issues within forest companies
Interview respondents from forestry companies and Aboriginal communities described FSC as
having helped raise awareness of Aboriginal issues within the forest company milieu. This was
especially true for Tembec and Al-Pac, the two companies that did not have a joint companyAboriginal ownership structure, as Mistik does. Requirements around documentation on
Aboriginal interests, standard operating procedures and cultural awareness training meant that
employees had become better informed about the history and current reality of Aboriginal
communities in their region. One member of the Eagle Village First Nation in Temiscamingue
(Tembec case study) describes: “FSC opened the door for industry and non-native organizations
to see what First Nations are all about, and how they feel about the land. It has helped to educate
industry people on how First Nations see the forest. To us, the forest is not a dollar sign, it’s
home”.
FSC played a key role in identifying weaknesses vis-à-vis relationships with Aboriginal
communities and, through annual audits, keeping these issues on the radar screens of companies
One of the most valuable contributions of the FSC process was its ability to identify problematic
issues – or areas needing improvement – and provide a source of ongoing surveillance of these
issues through the issuing of corrective actions requests (CARs). Through the annual audit
process, there was a built-in verification process that ensured that the company had made
sufficient progress to address these issues. The annual audit process also presented an opportunity
for Aboriginal communities to signal new issues to auditors as they emerge. The practice of
auditors consulting directly with Aboriginal representatives during assessments and audits was
described as a particularly effective means of ensuring that problematic issues were identified.
The nature of the issues varied from case to case, and included issues related to Aboriginal
consent, agreements, consultation processes, etc. The nature of these issues was such that forest
companies did not easily resolve them single-handedly, nor were they easily addressed within
short timelines. The FSC process appeared to have the flexibility to allow companies to show
continual progress, even if they were not able to solve all problems outright.
15
FSC had limited influence when it came to transfer of information about sites of special cultural,
ecological, economic or religious significance to Indigenous peoples
The FSC National Boreal Standard stipulates that “sites of special cultural, ecological, economic
or religious significance to Indigenous peoples” be protected (criterion 3.3). While all three
companies described themselves as open to protecting these types of values, for example burial
sites or specific hunting sites, the three companies had varying levels of success in acquiring
Aboriginal values information for the purposes of forest management planning. For many
communities, this information was considered the property of the community and was not readily
shared with forest companies. While the FSC process could ensure that companies maintained
lines of communication in this area, and developed confidentiality agreements where required, the
certification process could not influence the position of Aboriginal communities vis-à-vis the
transfer of information per se.
Mistik appeared to have had the most success in acquiring values information, likely due to the
large Aboriginal workforce and its joint company-Aboriginal ownership structure. Al-Pac and
Tembec employees relied primarily on values information collected through the annual planning
process. Tembec has found some success working with an Aboriginal community that has
developed its own analysis of wildlife values based on variables such as past harvesting and
habitat for certain species, allowing them to identify ‘core habitat’ protection zones. Al-Pac uses
information gathered through its trapper monitoring program -- which employs trappers to gather
data on furbearing animals on their traplines -- to monitor impact of forest management
operations on populations of fur-bearing animals, which are important to many Aboriginal
communities. Al-Pac’s new traditional land use and traditional knowledge program also aims to
bolster the company’s knowledge of traditional land use and develop a more systematic approach
to addressing the impact of forest management activities on Aboriginal values.
FSC has helped structure internal company policies in the area of Aboriginal relations
A common observation amongst industry interview respondents was the notion that FSC had
helped their company to structure their internal policies and procedures vis-à-vis Aboriginal
relations. Requirements to demonstrate progress in meeting specific criteria and indicators drove
companies to better identify the roles and responsibilities of their employees with regards to
Aboriginal communities, formalize certain relationships with Aboriginal communities, especially
at the political level, and strengthen their policies related to Aboriginal communities.
Profiles of Three Company – Aboriginal Relationships
PROFILE 1: Tembec in the Temiscamingue region of Quebec
Tembec is a large Canadian forestry company with forest management responsibilities and wood
processing facilities in several provinces as well as in the United States and France. Tembec has
been one of Canada’s most pro-active companies in the area of FSC-certification. In 2001, the
company made a commitment to certify all its forestry operations across Canada, an area totaling
13 million hectares. Thus far, Tembec has achieved FSC certification on 10 million hectares.32
Although Tembec represents an interesting case study at the corporate level, we focus our
attention here on the Temiscamingue region in Quebec. The Temiscamingue region is situated in
32
www.tembec.com
16
western Quebec along the border with Ontario, in the southern half of the province (see Map 2).
The region was in fact the birthplace of Tembec, as the company was founded in the town of
Temiscaming in 1973 as the result of an employee buy-out of the local pulp mill. Tembec
remains one of the biggest employers in the region. The forests of the Temiscamingue region are
a combination of mixed-woods in the south and boreal to the north.
Map 2. Tembec forest license.
The FSC certificate area we are looking at, Forest Management Units (FMU) 081-51 and 081-52
encompasses approximately 1,000,000 ha of Crown forest under a 25-year tenure with Quebec’s
Ministry of Natural Resources. While forest harvesting and processing activities on this forest are
an important source of jobs for the region, the forests are also used intensively both by locals and
non-locals for a variety of other activities such as hunting, trapping and fishing (for which
Temiscamingue is a well-known destination), snowmobiling, hiking, cottaging, maple syrup
production and berry picking.
17
These forests are also part of the traditional territories of six First Nations – all Algonquin –
including Long Point First Nation, Eagle Village First Nation, Wolf Lake First Nation,
Temiscaming First Nation, Kitcisakik First Nation and Lac Simon First Nation. The territories of
the first three, Long Point, Eagle Village and Wolf Lake, have the greatest overlap with the
boundaries of the FMU. In terms of population size, the Aboriginal population for
Temiscamingue region is estimated at 1,645, which constitutes approximately 10% of the overall
population.33 None of these First Nations have signed treaties with the Canadian government, nor
are any currently involved in any land claim negotiations at the federal level. As a result, they
retain their Aboriginal title; however, this also means they have few special rights on the forest.
Therefore, while land-based activities remain central to the culture and economy of these First
Nation communities, these activities occur alongside (or in some cases in direct competition with)
many other activities in the forest. Forestry has been a particularly problematic issue for many
Algonquin communities, as forestry activities are perceived by some to be having negative
impacts on both wildlife populations and human health (for example, through the use of
herbicides and pesticides). Historically, these communities have benefited very little from forest
industry employment.
However, the relationship between Aboriginal communities and the forest sector has changed
considerably over the past decade. While each community has different goals and a different
approach for how they deal with the forest sector (some are interested in pursuing eco-tourism,
others are concerned with protecting wildlife, while still others desire more and better industry
jobs), what they have in common is an increase in the overall level of participation and interaction
with the forest sector. From a situation of virtual exclusion in the past, which for two
communities came to a head in the early 2000’s in the form of road blockades34, all six
communities are now directly engaged in consultations with both the provincial government and
multiple forestry companies operating on their traditional territories. This change can be linked to
a number of factors, including activism on the part of Aboriginal peoples, court directives leading
to legislative and policy reforms from the provincial government, and “stepped up” efforts on the
part of companies like Tembec. In the case of Tembec, there is evidence that FSC has played a
role both in structuring and reinforcing the company’s relationships with Aboriginal
communities.
Table 2. Timeline for FSC certification process for FMU 081-51 and 081-52
September to November 2005
FSC assessment, including a one week field visit
June 2006
FSC certificate issued
May to October 2007
2007 annual audit (finalized April 2008)
May 2008
2008 annual audit (finalized December 2008)
Tembec went into the FSC certification process in the Temiscamingue region with a certain
history and track record of working with Aboriginal peoples. At a company-wide level, Tembec
had an Aboriginal policy in place and an Aboriginal scholarship program, and had created a series
of internal working groups around a numerous issues such as economic development,
consultation and donations. They had also signed financial agreements with several, though not
all, Aboriginal communities in the region to support their capacity to participate in consultation
and planning. In addition, they had put in place a tracking system for certain key statistics in the
33
Statistics Canada 2006
In 2004 members of the Lac Simon and Long Point First Nations blockaded a logging road on a Forest
Management Unit neighbouring the ones managed by Tembec.
34
18
area of economic development and consultation. However, following the first FSC assessment in
2005, a series of correction action requests (CARs) were issued, which pointed out areas of
weakness and served to orient Tembec’s future actions. The nature of these CARs – such as the
need for better integration of Aboriginal interests in medium and long-term planning, or the need
to investigate opportunities for agreements with some communities, required substantial effort
and commitment on the part of Tembec. The CARs related to Aboriginal issues are listed in Table
3.
Table 3. Select Corrective Action Requests Related to Principle 3 Issued to Tembec as a
Result of First FSC Assessment (2005)
Tembec shall demonstrate that it has agreed or is in the process of agreeing with the First
Nations on a process allowing the consideration of their interests in medium and long-term
planning.
Tembec shall undertake the necessary actions for reaching an agreement on a consultation
process on forest management planning with Lac Simon and Long Point First Nations. In the
absence of such a formal agreement, the company shall prove that it makes all the necessary
efforts to obtain consent of these FNs on forest planning matters.
Tembec shall obtain precision on the interests of the organisations representing the Métis for
the certified area and develop an action plan in order to take them into consideration as
required Principle 3.
Tembec shall verify the interest of each FN for a joint assessment (or an adjustment of what is
currently done if deemed necessary) and the identification of protection measures for the
resources used by FNs. These measures shall be incorporated into the medium/long term
planning. The scope of this assessment, the timelines, its implementation level and the method
used shall be determined in agreement with First Nations.
While Tembec had already negotiated agreements with some Aboriginal communities prior to
certification, the FSC certification process encouraged Tembec to further their efforts in this
regard. According to Tembec staff interviewed, the agreements entered into by Tembec tend to be
multi-faceted documents, and content reflects the needs and interests of each community. They
generally involve some financial contribution from Tembec towards activities such as
consultation, capacity-building, economic development, research and/or monitoring. Some also
involve commitments around hiring or volume allocations for Aboriginal companies. According
to a Tembec representative, the agreements have helped to clarify the goals and objectives for
both parties and have helped to structure commitments: “It has allowed us to transition resources
from arguing and debate and discussions and uncertainty to – here’s in general what we want to
work on – it’s on paper here and we’ll revisit it each year.”
According to Aboriginal representatives interviewed, the financial and in-kind contributions
channeled through these agreements have been essential in helping to build up the technical
capacity to participate more effectively in forest management consultations. Several communities
have used the financial support to set up or bolster a small forestry department, wherein a few
people are hired and trained to deal with the many consultation requests coming from industry
and government. In other cases the money is used to build capacity or buy equipment to
undertake cartography or to further traditional land use studies. This expertise is important for
Aboriginal communities, not only for their dealings with the forest industry, but with other
natural resource industries and in their political dealings with government as well. For Tembec,
these agreements represent key evidence of their efforts to meet many of the indicators required
19
by Principle 3. The broad nature of the agreements allows Tembec to target key areas identified
in FSC assessment and audits; for example, around capacity-building, identifying and protecting
Aboriginal values on the land, and contributing to economic development.
Another area where Tembec has made considerable progress is in the elaboration of consultation
processes with Aboriginal communities around forest management planning. Consultation
represents one of the key areas of interaction and negotiation between the company and
Aboriginal peoples. For Aboriginal peoples this arena is important on several levels. At a political
level, communities wish to directly influence the nature and scope of resource management on
their traditional territories, hence the emphasis on the integration of Aboriginal interests in
medium and long-term planning. At an operational level, communities (especially families active
on the land), wish to have their resource needs respected and protected. Prior to 2001, Tembec
acted according to the rule of law – which at the time, required little more than to make plans
accessible to Aboriginal peoples for review. Legal requirements have since increased, and
Tembec has taken these requirements several steps further in order to satisfy requests from
Aboriginal communities and the requirements of the FSC process. Since the initial assessment in
2005, CARs issued as part of the FSC process have continually required Tembec to focus on
improving consultation with Aboriginal peoples in medium and long-term planning. Tembec has
therefore invested considerable resources towards consultation and now orchestrates a detailed
step-by-step process, which is tailored to and agreed upon with each Aboriginal community in the
region. In most cases, this process begins with pre-consultation meetings, whereby Tembec
presents potential harvesting sites, and Aboriginal communities have the opportunity to request
modifications before inventories are undertaken and other investments are made. During later
consultation meetings, specific agreements are made to mitigate impacts on Aboriginal resources
(for example larger buffers on waterways, adoption of specific harvesting techniques, protection
of certain sites). The Ministry of Natural Resources is charged with following up on the
agreements in order ensure conformance.
Although still an area under development, Tembec also makes an effort to integrate their existing
knowledge of Aboriginal sensitive sites and values into their plans. The protection of these sites is
required by criterion 3.3 of the FSC boreal standard. In one case, Tembec and an Aboriginal
community have agreed upon a process to identify and protect or mitigate certain sites from
harvesting due to their wildlife potential. The community has developed their own land-based
analysis based on variables such as past harvesting and habitat for certain species, thereby
allowing them to identify zones for protection called “core habitats”. In other communities there
is greater reticence to share this type of information, due to the sensitive nature of the information
and concerns about confidentiality. In these cases, Tembec works with whatever information has
been made available to them – which in most cases comes from the consultation process around
the annual plan. Again, the FSC audit identified insufficient progress in this area and a CAR was
issued in 2007 requiring the company to “verify the interest of each First Nation for a joint
assessment and the identification of protection measures for the resources used by First Nations”.
Despite improvements to consultation processes, it remains an enduring challenge for Tembec
and Aboriginal communities to agree on acceptable levels of compromise between the application
of industrial forestry practices and the protection of Aboriginal interests and resources. This is
reflected in ongoing FSC audits, which continue to issue CARs requiring Tembec to improve
consultation practices with Aboriginal communities. While these issues are difficult to resolve
outright, and are perhaps best seen as a ‘work in progress’, there is clear evidence that the FSC
process – particularly the yearly audits – provide a mechanism by which Aboriginal peoples can
provide ongoing feedback and identify new issues as they arise. The annual audits also serve to
20
motivate Tembec to demonstrate continual improvement on key dossiers vis-à-vis Aboriginal
peoples.
For their part, Aboriginal peoples have also been proactive in raising the bar when it comes to
consultation. One initiative of particular interest is a process of endorsement certificates instituted
by the Long Point First Nation. In short, the leadership at the Long Point First Nation made the
decision that any developers seeking to extract resources on their traditional territory should be
required to apply for a certificate from Long Point before commencing operations. This was
considered by many to be a contentious proposal, as it could be construed as a challenge to the
provincial government’s authority (the province tacitly opposed it). However after much
deliberation, and many drafts of the approval document, Tembec agreed to participate in the
process. The certificate process allows Long Point to place general conditions or measures on a
certificate– for example a larger buffer on a waterway or the protection of certain sites. A dispute
resolution protocol is built into the certificate process. The process has been in place for three
years, and according to both representatives from Tembec and Long Point First Nation, it is
functioning very well.
PROFILE 2: Mistik Management in Northwestern Saskatchewan
Mistik Management provides a unique example of industry - Aboriginal relations in the boreal
forest. Mistik is one of the few FSC certified forest companies that is owned, in part, by a First
Nations organization. Mistik is a woodlands management company formed as a joint venture
between two parties. The first is the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, a political organization that
brings together nine First Nations residing in the Meadow Lake district35, and which owns the
Norsask sawmill in Meadow Lake. The second is Asia Pacific Pulp, a large international
company, which owns the adjacent pulp mill, Meadow Lake Mechanical Pulp. Mistik manages a
1.8 million hectare Crown license, called a Forest Management Area (FMA), which provides the
wood supply for the pulp mill and sawmill.
The FMA is situated in the boreal forest zone in northwestern Saskatchewan (see Map 3). The
population of this region is predominantly Aboriginal, especially in the northern half of the FMA
where it is estimated that the Aboriginal population (either First Nation or Métis) is upwards of
90%. In the southern half of the FMA, including the town of Meadow Lake itself, the proportion
is closer to 50%. There are more than 30 Aboriginal communities either within or adjacent to the
FMA of which approximately half are First Nation and half are Métis. The First Nations in this
area were signatories to treaties in the late 19th century, which sought to abolish First Nations
title to the land in return for the protection of hunting and fishing rights. Within today’s modern
day context, these First Nations communities have exclusive trapping rights only in territories in
close proximity to their communities. These territories are delineated by a system called Fur
Conservation Areas, created by the Saskatchewan government in the 1940s. Although considered
imperfect boundaries, they continue to define community trapping jurisdictions for most
communities. The Métis, while not signatory to treaties, are recognized as having certain rights
under the Canadian Constitution Act (1982). The subsistence economy continues to be important
to these Aboriginal communities, especially in more northern regions. Hunting of wild game such
as moose, deer, elk and to a lesser extent bear and woodland caribou, is popular. Trapping is also
common practice. Other subsistence activities include berry picking and medicinal plant
harvesting.
35
The 9 First Nations include Birch Narrows First Nation, Buffalo River Dene Nation, Canoe Lake Cree
Nation, Clearwater River Dene Nation, English River First Nation, Flying Dust First Nation, Big Island
Lake First Nation, Makwa Sahgaiecan First Nation and Waterhen Lake First Nation.
21
36
Map 3. Mistik Management forest license .
Industrial forestry activities are an important part of the economy in northwestern Saskatchewan,
and represent one of the main sources of employment for what are relatively remote communities.
Unlike neighbouring towns in Alberta, where the oil and gas industry have brought
unprecedented economic growth and employment, northwestern Saskatchewan has yet to see any
substantive oil and gas development. This is beginning to change as exploration gets underway.
Therefore, while employment in the oil and gas industry in Alberta is an option for those
community members willing to leave their communities for extended periods of time, forestry is
one of few options in the natural resource industries for those Aboriginal people who choose to
stay home. The unemployment rate in these communities is generally in the vicinity of 40%37
Two other forest-related industries that provide seasonal employment for Aboriginal communities
36
37
Due to space constraints only a selection of Aboriginal communities are shown.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/
22
are commercial mushroom harvesting and wild rice harvesting. This FMA is in fact one of the
most highly developed sites for wild rice harvesting in Canada.
Mistik Management made the decision to pursue FSC certification in 2005. They were awarded
FSC certification in November 2007. Table 4 shows the timeline of Mistik’s FSC certification
process. The company came to FSC certification with a relatively strong record of working with
Aboriginal communities. The influence of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council as joint owner of the
company had imbued Mistik with a distinct social mandate and orientation towards the
Aboriginal communities in the region. This is reflected in Mistik’s mission statement, which
includes a commitment to: “Respecting Aboriginal and treaty rights and providing participation
opportunities for Aboriginal peoples with respect to their rights and interest in our forestry
activities.”38 One Mistik employee describes the coherence between Mistik’s corporate approach
and FSC: “Right from Mistik’s origin, all the communities across the FMA have always been
considered and included in employment and consultation, right from day one. It’s nothing new to
us – we’ve always done it. So it’s just a natural fit for us, in terms of certification itself.”
Table 4. Timeline for FSC certification process for Mistik’s Forest Management Unit
Fall 2006
FSC assessment including one week of field work
November 2007
FSC certificate issued
October 2008
2008 annual audit (finalized December 2008)
Mistik has a number of innovative policies, which not only distinguish them from status quo
forestry companies, but also facilitated the FSC certification process. One of these is the area of
Aboriginal employment. The company has a policy in place whereby contracts are, as a matter of
priority, offered to the First Nations community on whose traditional territory operations are
slated to happen. These territories are delineated according to the Fur Conservation Areas. If local
contractors cannot be found, the contract is offered to neighbouring communities. According to
Mistik staff, this is not always the most efficient approach to allocating contracts, particularly
from an administrative perspective, however the policy reflects the community-minded
philosophy of the company. In order to improve efficiency, in recent years Mistik has been
encouraging communities to collaborate on contracts and pool their equipment and resources. The
priority placed on Aboriginal employment is reflected in Mistik’s employment statistics. Mistik
has surpassed its own goal of representing the proportion of Aboriginal people within the overall
population in their workforce (estimated at 60%). The percentage of contractor person days of
work filled by Aboriginal workers between 2003 and 2006 was actually above 70% in all but
200639. Mistik also has a policy of prioritizing local employment. According to Mistik statistics,
the percentage that is filled by local communities was consistently around 90% between 2003 and
2006.
Mistik uses a number of mechanisms to foster ongoing communication and consultation with
Aboriginal communities. On the one hand, they put considerable resources into maintaining
relationships on the ground with a variety of stakeholders such as trappers, outfitters, and
contractors. More than 40% of Mistik’s core staff are Aboriginal and come from the communities
in this region. According to employees interviewed, this gives them unique insight into the
cultural context and particular issues facing these communities and facilitates social contact with
38
39
Mistik website www.mistik.ca
Mistik statistics.
23
community members. The process of consultation around forest management plans also entails
significant face-to-face contact. An annual mail-out is done to advise stakeholders of upcoming
operations, which is followed by phone calls and in-person meetings with many stakeholders.
These meetings also allow Mistik staff to become aware of potentially sensitive sites or other
values that need protection in the planning process. Mistik keeps a database of sites in addition to
data provided by the provincial government. Mistik also makes special efforts to accommodate
requests from community members, such as opening an access road earlier than necessary in
order to allow community members to have access to a blueberry site or a cone-picking site.
Mistik is perhaps best known for its effort to create a more structured approach to consultation –
via the initiation and support for a series of co-management boards throughout the Aboriginal
communities in and around the FMA.40 These boards were formed jointly by Mistik and
numerous communities in the early 1990’s as a mechanism to share decision-making with local
communities and help to resolve conflict over the presence of forestry operations in traditional
territories. There has been no single approach to the creation of these groups; each community
decides upon the structure, composition and functional rules for their own co-management
boards. Most bring together a diversity of land-based interests in the community, including
council members, elders, contractors, trappers, etc. Mistik relies on these groups as the main
consultative body for the community on forestry issues, for example for matters related to
consultation around annual plans (including such things as size and location of cut blocks, harvest
regulations, road locations, method of harvest, reforestation plans), information transfer and
education, and communication around economic development opportunities. According to one
spokesperson for the Meadow Lake Tribal Council interviewed, the co-management boards have
been instrumental in giving the community more direct influence over the planning process and
has increased community capacity around forest management issues in communities where they
exist. Mistik administers an annual survey of all co-management boards and advisory groups in
order to evaluate their performance and assess forest values and perceptions of these groups.
Mistik has also instituted a type of revenue-sharing policy with local communities, which is
administered through the co-management boards. A total of 50 cents per cubic meter is returned
to the First Nations communities that are part of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, when wood is
harvested on their traditional trapping areas (calculated according to the Fur Conservation Areas
delineations). Each community has full discretion over how the money is spent and there is no
obligation to direct the money towards forestry-related activities. In the past, this money has gone
towards a variety of activities – from supporting the co-management boards and forestry activities
to services such as the fire department, housing, and the hiring of economic development officers.
According to Mistik staff, the company sees this as an opportunity to redistribute forestry
revenues more widely amongst all community members.
The fact of having a First Nations based ownership structure, and having put certain consultative
mechanisms in place, does not give Mistik a ‘free ride’ when it comes to FSC certification.
During the FSC assessment in 2006, the auditor looking at Aboriginal relations recognized certain
weaknesses with some of the co-management boards – a tendency that had been observed by
other researchers as well.41 The auditor described the co-management boards as having “relatively
40
Co-management boards include the Waterhen Lake Land and Resources Board, Buffalo Narrows,
Sakitawik Resource Management, DeneSuline (Dillon), Canoe Lake Traditional Resource Users Board,
Beauval Co-management Board. In communities where no board has been formed, Mistik works with
advisory boards or the political leadership. Advisory Boards include Divide Forest Advisory Corporation,
Pierceland/Goodsoil Forest Advisory Board.
41
Hebert et el. 2003 and Beckley and Chambers 2002
24
low level of governance foundation and discipline” – meaning that clear rules and terms of
reference were not set out for membership and operating principles were not in place. The comanagement boards were also described as insufficient as a “formal consultation mechanism with
respect to Aboriginal rights”. There were also questions as to the distribution and use of funds. A
series of CARs were therefore issued, requiring Mistik to put additional efforts into improving the
governance of co-management boards and ensuring their representativity and accountability to
the broader community. Table 5 lists these CARs.
Table 5. Select Correction Action Requests related to Principle 3 Issued as a Result of
First FSC Assessment (2007)
Within 12 months of certification, Mistik shall conduct a detailed evaluation of the potential
options for improving the governance, functionality and utility of the Comanagement Boards as a means to: 1. Obtain more meaningful, representative community
input regarding Mistik’s proposed FMPs and practices; 2. Provide a more effective mechanism
for consultation with respect to the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the First Nations and Métis
communities within the FMA, and; 3. Reduce or eliminate the potential for conflict of interest
and mis-use of funds that is apparent in some of the current Co-management Boards.
Within 12 months of certification, Mistik shall: 1. Obtain specific agreements (preferably
written) with each Aboriginal community that the Co-management Boards are an acceptable
vehicle for ensuring that their interests and concerns are adequately addressed in Mistik’s
FMPs and practices, or; 2. Develop an alternative vehicle for integrating those Aboriginal
community’s concerns into Mistik’s planning processes.
Since this time, one annual audit has elapsed, which revealed that Mistik has made additional
efforts to enter into discussions with Aboriginal communities around improving board
governance and consultations more generally. However, the incomplete status of certain
initiatives led the auditor to keep the condition ‘open’ until the next audit. The evolving nature of
the co-management boards nonetheless provides a good illustration of the ‘vigilant’ role that FSC
audits can playing in motivating a forest company – even one as well entrenched socially as
Mistik – to strive towards better results. The FSC process, in requiring the company to undergo
ongoing evaluation, does not obligate the company to single-handedly solve problems but does
require them to commit to trying to find solutions and develop a longer-term strategy towards
improving the situation.
The FSC assessment process also brought to light a larger political issue, which, although it has
ramifications that go beyond the certification process, illustrates how FSC can help to influence
political relations. Briefly, one of the First Nations whose traditional territory overlaps with
Mistik’s FMA (the Big Island Lake Cree Nation) has launched a legal battle against the
Saskatchewan government and industrial users (including Mistik) operating on their traditional
territory. The Big Island Lake First Nation filed a Statement of Claim in 2001, in light of what
they see as infringements by these parties on their Aboriginal and treaty rights. The First Nation
withdrew their membership from the Meadow Lake Tribal Council and other umbrella
organizations around the same time. They have participated only sporadically in consultations
with Mistik and have not given their consent to Mistik’s forest management activities. The FSC
assessment evaluated this situation and determined that it represented a “significant ongoing
dispute” as outlined in FSC Criterion 2.3. However, the auditor recognized that it was beyond
Mistik’s ability to resolve this dispute single-handedly, and issued the company an observation
requiring Mistik to continue efforts to meet with representatives from Big Island Lake in order to
agree upon a process of consultation, share information regarding forest management plans and
25
address the First Nation’s concerns with Mistik’s forest management plans and practices.
However, despite clear efforts on the part of Mistik, the lack of substantive progress on this front
between the assessment in 2007 and the first annual audit in 2008 resulted in its elevation to a
CAR in 2008.
PROFILE 3: Alberta-Pacific in Northeastern Alberta
The forest company Alberta-Pacific (hereby referred to as Al-Pac) manages a large Crown
license, called a Forest Management Agreement (FMA) in northeastern Alberta. It is the largest
FSC-certified forest in the world. Al-Pac operates a large pulp mill (the largest single-line
bleached kraft pulp mill in the world) in the community of Boyle, located just south of the FMA.
The mill receives most of its wood fibre from the FMA. The 5.5 million hectare FMA is directly
west of Mistik’s FMA and extends north well beyond Fort McMurray (see Map 4). As such it is
in the heart of oil and gas country in Alberta. Various oil and gas infrastructures such as seismic
lines, well sites, pipelines, camps and roads are present across the FMA. In addition to oil and gas
activities, the FMA is used for a variety of subsistence and recreational activities such as sport
hunting (with an associated guide outfitting industry), trapping, and gathering. Of the more than
400 registered traplines on this FMA, half are licensed to Aboriginal peoples.42
42
Forest Management Public Summary for Al-Pac. www.alpac.ca/pdf/Public%20summary.pdf
26
43
Map 4. Alberta-Pacific forest license .
There are 15 Aboriginal communities within the FMA, encompassing a population of
approximately 24,000 people. First Nations within the FMA include the Bigstone Cree Nation
and its associated communities (Wabasca/Desmarais, Calling Lake, Trout Lake, Peerless Lake,
Chipewyan Lake), the Fort McKay First Nation, Fort McMurray #468 First Nation, Chipewyan
Prairie First Nation, and Heart Lake First Nation. An additional 16,000 Aboriginal people live in
close proximity to the FMA44. These First Nations are covered by Treaties 6 and 8. The
communities in the northern part of the FMA tend to be more active land users. Those in the
south also practice subsistence activities but are also more active in the forest industry. There are
two Métis organizations with an interest in the region, the Métis Settlements General Council and
the Métis Nation of Alberta.
43
44
Due to space constraints only a selection of Aboriginal communities are shown.
www.alpac.ca
27
Al-Pac began preparing for FSC certification in 2000 and received its certificate in 2005. Table 6
describes the key dates in the certification process. In 2006, Al-Pac also received the Progressive
Aboriginal Relations certification, an initiative that recognizes strong economic ties and
community relations with Aboriginal communities.
Table 6. Timeline for FSC certification process for Al-Pac’s Forest Management Unit
November 2004
FSC assessment including two week field visit
September 2005
FSC certificate issued
September 2006
2006 annual audit (finalized December 2006)
Oct./Nov. 2007
2007 annual audit (finalized May 2008)
Al-Pac has had an active Aboriginal Affairs program in place since the company began operating
in this region the early 1990’s. According to the Director of Aboriginal Affairs, the company
recognized early on the importance of working with Aboriginal communities in the FMA because
they “share the same backyard”. While initially the company set up a specific Aboriginal Affairs
team, they have now integrated Aboriginal issues into all units within Al-Pac and each unit is
expected to set goals and commitments around supporting and promoting Aboriginal well-being.
Al-Pac also has a relatively large staff dedicated to Aboriginal affairs including an Aboriginal
affairs director, three trapper coordinators, two community coordinators and an office service
technician. The company also requires all employees to take cultural sensitivity training, which
includes information on such topics as Aboriginal communities in the FMA, consultation, treaty
rights, and Aboriginal values. Since pursuing FSC certification, the company has also endorsed
an Aboriginal Affairs Strategy (2007) that outlines specific initiatives and programs in four areas:
1) consultation with Aboriginal Peoples, 2) business building, 3) employment, education and
training education, and 4) administration. There is an annual work plan associated with the
Strategy, on which the company reports quarterly. According to one Al-Pac staff, one of the
greatest contributions of the FSC certification process is that it encouraged the company to better
formalize and centralize their internal processes.
Unlike Tembec, which has pursued written agreements with most Aboriginal communities in
their Temiscamingue license area, Al-Pac did not adopt a policy of written agreements prior to
FSC certification. They had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with one First Nation in
their FMA area, which sets out a series of commitments in the area of economic development,
traditional land use, consultation, and education. Al-Pac is also part of a regional agreement
called the All Parties Agreement, signed in 2003, which commits seven companies in
northeastern Alberta, mainly energy companies, to provide over $4 million in funding to the
Athabasca Tribal Council. The Tribal Council brings together five First Nations, the Athabasca
Chipewyan, Chipewyan Prairie, Fort McKay, Fort McMurray and Mikisew Cree First Nations.
The initial FSC assessment identified the lack of formal agreements with Aboriginal communities
as a weakness in Al-Pac’s relations with Aboriginal communities, and issued a CAR requiring
them to “report on efforts to conclude agreements with interested Aboriginal communities and
organizations within the FMA area”. Table 7 describes all the CARs associated with Principle 3
issued as part of the first FSC assessment. Results of the second annual audit revealed that Al-Pac
had made considerable progress towards negotiating agreements with other Aboriginal
communities. Four agreements were drafted and were under consideration by the Aboriginal
communities involved.
28
Table 7. Select Correction Action Requests related to Principle 3 Issued as a Result of
First FSC Assessment (2005)
Al-Pac shall have:
- Met with elected representatives of all Aboriginal communities and organizations within and
surrounding the FMA and ask if they have traditional interests in the FMA;
- Discussed communication issues with those that have expressed traditional interests; and,
- Implemented strategies to improve on-going communications about the
communities’/organizations’ interests related to forest lands and their interests in forest
economic development activities.
By the end of year 2 of certification, Al-Pac shall report on efforts to conclude agreements
with interested Aboriginal communities and organizations with the FMA area. Al-Pac shall
document efforts to include forest management planning in these agreements.
By the end of year 2 of certification, Al-Pac shall offer in writing to work with all Aboriginal
communities within and surrounding its FMA that have expressed a traditional interest in the
FMA, to identify and map the traditional land use boundaries according to the Aboriginal
community’s governing body.
By the end of year 2 of certification, Al-Pac shall report on progress in relation to the
following:
a) support of traditional land use studies with Aboriginal communities and organizations with
an interest in the FMA area
b) in association with communities/organizations, complete joint assessments of the impacts
of forest management on traditional resource harvesting, and
c) find additional ways to minimize the impact of harvesting activities on traditional
resources, particularly trapping
A big focus for Al-Pac has been on employment creation for Aboriginal communities. However,
unlike the case of Tembec in Quebec and Mistik in Saskatchewan where remote communities
face few employment options, Al-Pac finds itself competing with a lucrative oil and gas industry
for skilled labour. According to a spokesperson from Al-Pac, the forest company simply cannot
match the salaries of the oil and gas industry, and recruiting and maintaining a skilled workforce
is therefore an ongoing challenge. Al-Pac has done some innovative things in order to support the
economic development of Aboriginal communities. They have supported several Aboriginal startup companies, including Bigstone Forestry Inc. and JHL Forestry, amongst other things through
an annual volume allocation (meaning a guaranteed volume of timber for the companies to
harvest) and the secondment of a manager. Bigstone Forestry is a logging company that began as
a partnership between Al-Pac, Weyerhauser and the Bigstone Cree Nation in the community of
Wabasca. This company began operating in 2000 and over this time has doubled its employment
of local people from 11 to more than 20. Al-Pac provides Bigstone Forestry with an annual
volume of 300,000 m3. Another example is JHL Forestry, a logging company that is a partnership
between Al-Pac, Chipewyan Prairie First Nation and Heart Lake First Nation and the federal
government. This company began operating in 2004 and employs over 10 people. Al-Pac
provides an annual volume of 180,000 m3.
Al-Pac has also initiated a community secondment program, whereby Al-Pac pays the salary of
select people within Aboriginal communities, in order for them to work in the area of community
development. The community is under no obligation to direct these positions towards forestry or
natural resources. There are currently three such positions underway. One person has helped set
up a consultation office, another does administrative work for chief and council and another
29
works in community economic development. Al-Pac also runs an Aboriginal apprenticeship
training program where the company assists Aboriginal people in acquiring apprenticeship
training and certification for resource-based industries such as forestry. Although these students
often acquire these skills and then move on to more lucrative industries, Al-Pac still classifies the
program as a success because it has created opportunities for Aboriginal youth. Al-Pac also
awards an annual scholarship to an Aboriginal student from in or near the FMA. This scholarship
provides full tuition for up to five years of post secondary studies.
Consultation is coordinated through the political leadership of each community and includes
meetings to discuss annual plans and long-term plans. Al-Pac has two community liaison officers
in sub offices in the communities of Wabasca and Janvier. The role of the liaisons is to work with
communities in order to provide information about Al-Pac’s activities and support community
development projects. Al-Pac also supports a trapper coordinating position as part of their trapper
notification and support program, which seeks to keep trappers informed about forest
management activities on a short and long-term basis. Al-Pac also has a broad advisory
committee that includes different forestry stakeholders, and includes an Aboriginal caucus.
According to Al-Pac staff, Aboriginal participation in the advisory committee is low. The FSC
assessment identified weaknesses in Al-Pac’s communication approach with Aboriginal
communities, especially for communities outside the FMA. Auditors found awareness of AlPac’s most recent forest management plan (2004) to be very low and consultation mechanisms to
be lacking, which was linked to poor performance under indicator 3.2.1 of the boreal standard,
which requires that Aboriginal interests be incorporated into the management plan. A CAR was
issued requiring Al-Pac to find out about the traditional interest of all communities within and
surrounding the FMA and implement strategies to improve communications about their interests
in the land and in forest economic development activities. The company was given two years to
make improvements in this area. The 2007 audit revealed that Al-Pac had stepped up efforts to
communicate with all Aboriginal communities and had a sufficiently diverse number of
consultation mechanisms in place. Al-Pac also developed an Aboriginal Consultation Policy,
which sets out a formalized process of consultation with communities, including roles and
responsibilities of Al-Pac employees.
A related CAR required Al-Pac to offer to work with Aboriginal communities to map traditional
land use boundaries and to support traditional land use studies of Aboriginal communities and
participate in joint assessments of the impacts of forest management on traditional resource
harvesting. As was the case with Tembec, Aboriginal communities appreciate support for
traditional land use studies – and Al-Pac provides some equipment and capacity – but considers
this information to be internal to the community. Therefore most values information is collected
during the planning process and in discussions with the trapper coordinators. Al-Pac has also
instituted a trapper monitoring program, which employs trappers to gather data on furbearing
animals on their traplines. This data is used by Al-Pac to monitor impact of forest management
operations on populations of fur-bearing animals. Al-Pac has also recently approved a new
traditional land use and traditional knowledge program – which aims to bolster Al-Pac’s
knowledge of traditional land use and develop a more systematic approach to addressing the
impact of forest management activities on Aboriginal values.
30
Lessons Learned for Partnership-Building Between Forest Companies and First
Nations
Groundwork laid by companies prior to the certification process facilitates FSC certification
In the case of all these three companies, considerable work had already been undertaken to build
relationships with Aboriginal peoples prior to engaging in the FSC certification process.
Interview respondents from all three companies described their company as committed to
working with Aboriginal communities regardless of the FSC process. While this previous
commitment is not a requirement for successful FSC certification (some companies come to the
FSC process with virtually no experience working with Aboriginal communities) it certainly
helped these companies to meet the requirements of Principle 3. The nature of building successful
relationships with Aboriginal communities is such that it requires time, consistent communication
and long-term contact. All these companies demonstrated this type of long-term commitment. In
fact, according to some interview respondents, the positive track record of working with
Aboriginal peoples was a determining factor in the company’s selection of FSC over other
certification systems.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to working with Aboriginal communities
Interview respondents from the three forest companies emphasized the importance of taking a
differentiated approach with each of the Aboriginal communities in their region. The Aboriginal
communities in these regions had their own set of priorities and objectives when it came to
dealing with forest companies. For example, some were more oriented towards protection of
Aboriginal land use values, others towards ecotourism and others towards employment in the
forest industry (clearly, there were also differences within communities). Furthermore, the form
of consultation that each Aboriginal community desired was also different. Programs and policies
developed around requirements of the FSC process were therefore not necessarily applicable in a
uniform manner across all of the Aboriginal communities in and around a single forest
management license.
Consistent and frequent lines of communication are essential
Both Aboriginal and forest company respondents emphasized the need to establish clear and
frequent lines of communication between the two parties. Maintaining consistency in terms of the
people working on the ground was helpful both for building meaningful relationships and
improving accountability in terms of the types of commitments that were made. The frequent
turnover of political leadership in many Aboriginal communities made it particularly important to
set up clear and multiple lines of communication. Several of the forest companies had invested
considerable resources in the Aboriginal relations aspect of their company and this was
considered a key to their success.
FSC is not necessarily well known nor highest priority for Aboriginal communities
Several Aboriginal respondents observed that FSC is not necessarily well-known amongst
Aboriginal communities. In part, this was attributed to the presence of more pressing issues in
Aboriginal communities, such as those relating to housing, unemployment, and other social
issues. The frequent turnover of political leadership within communities was cited as another
constraint. They felt that FSC would have more influence and be a more powerful tool if
community members understood the standard, including specific criteria and indicators and the
31
extent of their application. There is therefore work to be done, both by forest companies and
others, to raise awareness of FSC amongst Aboriginal communities.
Aboriginal communities may require resources and capacity-building in order to prepare their
position vis-à-vis the certification process
For Aboriginal communities, participating in the FSC process requires considerable work on the
ground. In order to properly gauge their community’s perspective on forest company
performance, there may be community consultation to be undertaken. There may also be different
ecological analyses required on their part – for example regarding high conservation value
forests, the intersection of Aboriginal land use and forestry activities and the analysis of forest
management plans more generally. Forest companies should therefore be aware that engaging
Aboriginal communities in the FSC process may require not only time, but also the sharing of
certain resources – whether in the form of financial resources, technical expertise or other types
of support.
Conformance with Principle 3 is best approached as a ‘work in progress’
Unlike some parts of the FSC standard where conformance is relatively straightforward, the
criteria and indicators relating to Aboriginal peoples are highly complex. The FSC standard
requires forest companies to actively engage with numerous fundamental issues of a political
nature, such as respect for legal and customary rights, respect for Aboriginal resources and tenure
rights, and respect for traditional ecological knowledge. Interpretation of these issues is
challenging, both for forest companies and Aboriginal communities, and is likely to change over
time. The structure of the FSC process – with annual audits and 5-year reassessments – is such
that Aboriginal communities have an opportunity to revisit outstanding issues or identify new
issues as they arise. It is therefore highly likely – and this was seen in the three case studies – that
certain issues will be difficult to resolve outright and will therefore continually require work on
the part of forest companies. It is therefore perhaps best for forest companies to approach
conformance with Principle 3 as a ‘work in progress’ rather than a clear finish line.
Conclusion
FSC is one of several influences motivating forest companies to increase their engagement with
Aboriginal communities in the boreal forest. Other influences include court rulings that are
bringing greater clarity to Aboriginal rights and title, new government policies and regulations,
and political pressure from Aboriginal communities themselves. Forest companies are also
recognizing that they have much to gain from working with Aboriginal communities. Not only
are Aboriginal communities emerging as an important source of labour due to their growing
populations, they are gaining new expertise within forest sector and have an increasing political
influence.
The analysis of three forest companies revealed that the FSC certification process did indeed have
a positive influence on their corporate practice vis-à-vis Aboriginal communities. While all three
companies were previously committed to working with Aboriginal communities, there were
certain areas where the FSC process was able to orient company practice and mobilize the
company to take further action in this direction. Table 8 uses examples from our case studies to
illustrate the diverse ways that companies have worked to meet the FSC criteria in the Canadian
boreal.
32
Table 8. Company initiatives used to meet the criteria of FSC Principle 9.
FSC criteria
Examples of company initiatives
3.1 Indigenous peoples shall control forest
management on their lands and territories
unless they delegate control with free and
informed consent to other agencies
- revenue-sharing and capacity building
agreements
- support for co-management or advisory
boards
3.2 Forest management shall not threaten or
diminish, either directly or indirectly, the
resources or tenure rights of Indigenous
Peoples
- funding of Aboriginal land use studies
- trapper notification and support program
3.3 Sites of special cultural, ecological,
economic or religious significance to
Indigenous People(s) shall be clearly identified
in cooperation with such Peoples, and
recognized and protected by forest managers.
- GIS layers aimed at mapping sites of
Aboriginal significance integrated into forest
management planning
- agreement with First Nation around "core
habitat" zones which are either protected or
mitigated from harvesting
3.4 Indigenous Peoples shall be compensated
for the application of their traditional
knowledge regarding the use of forest species
or management systems in forest
operations. This compensation shall be
formally agreed upon with their free and
informed consent before forest operations
commence.
- traditional ecological knowledge is not
directly applied by companies in forest
operations, therefore there were no agreements
around compensation in place. However one
company participates in a traditional ecological
knowledge committee. Funding from
agreements can also be used by Aboriginal
communities to research traditional
knowledge.
FSC is not a prescriptive process – and as we have seen, these companies adopted different
approaches to working with Aboriginal communities that reflected both their corporate
philosophy and the Aboriginal context within which they were operating. In the case of Tembec,
the company had made a clear commitment to negotiating agreements with Aboriginal
communities, which were tailored to the specific interests and priorities of each community. This
allowed these communities to increase their capacity in the area of forest management, for
example through the hiring of staff or consultants, or through acquiring technical equipment or
expertise. Some agreements also included specific commitments in the area of economic
development. The FSC process helped to keep certain processes on track, such as the continual
refinement of consultation processes and efforts to develop protective measures for Aboriginal
resources.
33
In the case of Mistik Management, the company had developed strong employment and revenuesharing policies with Aboriginal communities prior to certification. The presence of the Meadow
Lake Tribal Council as part owner of Mistik kept Aboriginal issues front and center for the
company. In this case, the FSC process served to highlight certain weaknesses within existing
structures (notably the co-management boards) and also required the company to make consistent
efforts to resolve a larger political dispute with one specific First Nation. Al-Pac in Alberta had
shown itself to be strong in supporting business development and community development
initiatives in Aboriginal communities, amongst other things through their policy of "lending" staff
to communities through a policy of secondment. The FSC process motivated this company to
strengthen its communication and consultation mechanisms with Aboriginal communities, and
improve internal policies and procedures around Aboriginal relations as well.
The Aboriginal context is constantly changing and evolving. Both at a political level and at a
broader community level, Aboriginal expectations and attitudes towards the forest industry will
undoubtedly change over time. While the fundamental principles, criteria and indicators of FSC
are relatively fixed; the FSC certification process is nonetheless well adapted to keeping abreast
of these changes. Through the process of issuing corrective action requests, and following
through with annual audits and 5-year re-assessments, there is an opportunity for Aboriginal
communities to provide ongoing feedback on the relevance and effectiveness of company
practice. For their part, forest companies, in signing on to the FSC certification process, make a
commitment to respect the values and priorities expressed by Aboriginal communities and to
work with these communities on an ongoing basis.
34
References
Aboriginal Strategy Group. 2006. FSC and Aboriginal Communities in Ontario: An
Exploratory Dialogue. Ottawa. 15p.
Aboriginal Strategy Group. 2008. A Quantitative Assessment of Aboriginal Involvement in
the Canadian Forest Industry. Prepared for the First Nations Forestry Program, Natural
Resources Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Ottawa. 38p
Beckley, T.M., Hamersley Chambers, F. 2002. An Assessment of Co-management in the
NorSask Forest. Report prepared for Mistik Management. Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan.
Burton et al., Messier, C., Weetman, G.F., Prepas, E.E., Adamowicz, W.L., Tittler, R.
2003. The Current State of Boreal Forestry and the Drive for Change. Chapter 1 in
Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. P.J. Burton , C. Messier, D.W.
Smith, W.L. Adamowicz (eds.). Ottawa. NRC Research Press. 1-40.
Ecotrust Canada and National Aboriginal Forestry Association. 2002. A Voice on the Land:
An Indigenous Peoples’ Guide to Forest Certification in Canada. R. Collier, B. Parfitt, D.
Woollard. Vancouver, Ottawa. 106p.
FSC (Forest Stewardship Council). 2000. Draft Strategic Directions Paper on Indigenous
Peoples and Forest Stewardship Council Certification Prepared by an Indigenous Writing
Committee for Review and Comment. Drafted by R. Collier, R. Diabo, J.P. Gladu, P.
Smith & V. Peachey. Toronto. 13p.
FSC (Forest Stewardship Council). 2009. Global FSC certificates: type and distribution.
[online] http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/webdata/public/document_center/powerpoints_graphs/facts_figures/09-0615_Global_FSC_certificates_-_type_and_distribution_-_FINAL.pdf
Hebert, D., Harvey, B., Wasel, S., Dzus, E.H., Donnelly, M., Robert, J., Hamersley
Chambers, F. 2003. Chapter 22 in Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal
Forest. P.J. Burton , C. Messier, D.W. Smith, W.L. Adamowicz (eds.). Ottawa. NRC
Research Press. 893-952.
Howlett, M. R., Rayner, J. 2001. The Business and Government Nexus: Principal Elements
and Dynamics of the Canadian Forest Policy Regime. Canadian Forest Policy: Adapting
to Change. M. R. Howlett. Toronto, ON, University of Toronto Press. 23-62.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2009. Website. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ap/indexeng.asp
National Aboriginal Forestry Association 2003. Press Release: Canada Forest Policy
Inconsistent with Legal Requirements for Addressing Aboriginal Issues. National
Aboriginal Forestry Association. Ottawa. [online]
http://www.nafaforestry.org/press/legalrightssept2003.pdf
National Aboriginal Forestry Association 2007. Second Report on First
Nation-Held Tenures in Canada. National Aboriginal Forestry Association. Ottawa. 71p.
35
Natural Resources Canada. 2007. Boreal Forest Communities in Transition. Ottawa.
[online] http://canadaforests.nrcan.gc.ca/articletopic/137
Natural Resources Canada. 2001. Population Density, 2001. Ottawa. [online]
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/population/population2001/de
nsity2001
Parsons, R. et Prest, G. 2003. Aboriginal Forestry in Canada. The Forestry Chronicle
Vol. 79, 4. 779-784.
St-Arnaud, M., Sauvé, L. Kneeshaw, D. Forêt identitaire, forêt partagée : Trajectoire d’une
recherche participative chez les Anicinapek de Kitcisakik (Québec, Canada). Vertigo.
Vol. 6, 2. 1-12.
Statistics Canada. 2006. Aboriginal Population Profile, 2006. [online]
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/aboriginal/Search/SearchForm_R
esults.cfm?Lang=E
Stevenson and Webb, 2003. Just Another Stakeholder? First Nations and Sustainable Forest
Management in Canada’s Boreal Forest. Chapter 3 in Towards Sustainable Management
of the Boreal Forest. P.J. Burton , C. Messier, D.W. Smith, W.L. Adamowicz (eds.).
Ottawa. NRC Research Press. 65-112.
Tollefson, C. 2001. Indigenous Rights and Forest Certification. Presentation to the Second
Annual EnviReform Conference Hard Choices, Soft Law: Combining Trade, Environment,
and Social Cohesion in Global Governance. University of Toronto, Toronto. Nov 8-9.
36