|
NATIONAL ABORIGINAL FORESTRY ASSOCIATION |
| Home | About NAFA | Strategy | Membership | Publications | Jobs | Links | Archive |
Contents | <Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next>
Regardless of how quickly certification becomes the accepted practice in Canada, there will always be a market for non-certified forest products. Markets for rough lumber used in the production of wood products, such as pallets, construction and mining timbers, and a range of other industrial uses, will not come under the same scrutiny as will products marketed directly to consumers. As well, consumers in some countries or markets will not be as demanding. In the United States, for example, green consumerism has not had the same profile as it has had in Europe and, considering that 80% of all Canadian forest products are destined for the U.S. market, negative responses to certification by the U.S. forest industry will have a major impact on the effectiveness of certification systems. [See Ozanne & Vlosky, 1995 for a summary of these negative responses.]
Can Aboriginal communities and companies achieve increased business opportunities by catering to the markets for non-certified wood? Without complying with these certification systems, will Aboriginal forest managers be able to claim they are practising sustainable forest management?
As most Aboriginal forest harvesting companies operate within the licensed areas of forest companies, continued survival and opportunities for growth will depend on mutually beneficial working arrangements. Aboriginal communities and companies must recognize that the onus for implementing a sustainable forest management certification system will be on the forest company as the manager responsible for a licensed area, and cooperation in dealing with Aboriginal issues (traditional use, values, establishment of local indicators) could improve relations between Aboriginal communities and the forest industry and forest practices themselves.
As mentioned earlier, a major constraint to a First Nation seeking certification for a DFA comprising Indian Reserve lands is the cost relative to the value of the timber which could be harvested on a sustainable basis. Unless a First Nation owns a sawmill or a value added processing plant and produces a finished product for the consumer market with wood from the Reserve, certification may be too expensive to implement. Although short-term economic benefits may not be realized, an Aboriginal community may see long-term economic, social and environmental benefits from managing forests to meet certification standards.
The CSA has stated that its SFM System could be applied to DFAs as small as 100 hectares. Woodlot managers and private landowners could either combine their lands in one DFA and share costs of developing a SFM plan collectively, or an SFM system and plan could be developed for a number of small DFAs. Woodlot owners, through their associations, would need to work collectively to acquire certification. With modifications, a group of Aboriginal communities might do the same through, for example, a cooperative or economic development corporation.
Another possible option would be for Aboriginal communities or companies, on a regional or province-wide basis, to establish an entity which would serve as a certification organization under the auspices of either the CSA or FSC, or both. In addition to ensuring compliance with certification processes, an organization such as this could provide a range of other forestry services in the fields of environmental assessment and monitoring, forest management or operations such as harvesting and renewal. A number of existing Aboriginal forestry organizations are in a position now to take on such an added responsibility.
| Home | About NAFA | Strategy | Membership | Publications | Jobs | Links | Archive |
This page was updated: June 1, 2005 | Contact NAFA |
Website feedback | Site updated by Soleica Inc.
