About this site
National Forest Strategy
Aboriginal law


What is capacity?


What capacity-building initiatives exist?


How much capacity do we have?
  vide Bibliography
  Capacity websites
Traditional knowledge
vide Business
vide Youth
Metis forestry
vide Trapping and hunting
Forest certification
Climate change
Forest fire
General tools and references
Jokes and Fun
Other websites



  Capacity-Building > Selected Bibliography
  Including some annotations.
  Go to:
  Other on-line bibliographies
  Capacity-building for Aboriginal rights and participation in the forest sector
  Capacity-building in general
  Other on-line bibliographies

Annotated Bibliography of Aboriginal Education (Tl'azt'en Nation and the University of BC Community-University Research Alliance)

  This is a very long document. Many of the references given here are relevant to issues of traditional knowledge and/or Aboriginal human resources in the forest sector.
  Networks and Capacity Annotated Bibliography (European Centre for Development Policy Management)
  This bibliography emphasizes the function of networks as capacity for learning.
  Capacity-building for Aboriginal rights and participation in the forest sector
  Hopwood, A., J. Mactavish, P. Smith, A. Moar, and G. Scott. Aboriginal Forestry Training and Education Review (AFTER): Phase I Final Report. February 1993. Ottawa, ON: AFTER Committee and the National Aboriginal Forestry Association.
  The linked document includes both Executive Summary and full report. Also click here for the Phase II final report, Aboriginal human resource development needs in the forest sector, December 1994.
  Brascoupé, S. 1999. Aboriginal community capacity: The urgent need for a dramatic increase in Aboriginal Registered Professional Foresters. Draft Final Report and Action Plan. December 30, 1999. Ottawa, ON: National Aboriginal Forestry Association.
  This paper emphasizes an increase in Aboriginal Registered Professional Foresters (RPFs) as the key strategic pressure point in an action plan to build capacity for the forest sector. The goal of the action plan was to increase the number of Aboriginal RPFs from 16 known at the time to 500 by 2009. This action plan was not implemented.
  Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2004. National employer demand survey for foresters and forestry technicians. March 25, 2004.
  This survey provides an indication of expected shortages in highly skilled forest-related positions. This data suggests an opportunity for recruitment and training of Aboriginal people.

Frank, F., and A. Smith. 1999. The Community Development Handbook. Ottawa, ON: H uman Resources Development Canada.

  Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York, NY: Free Press.
  This classic book explores the potential for using differences in social capital, conceived as trust among individuals in a society, to explain differences observed in the economic performance of various nations, including Germany, France, U.S., Japan, China, and others.
  Goodman, R., M. Speers, K. McLeroy, S. Fawcett, M. Kegler, E. Parker, S.R. Smith, T. Sterling, and N. Wallerstein. 1998. Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Education and Behavior 25(3): 258-278.
  This paper presents the results of a 1995 symposium to identify the major dimentions of community capacity. It includes a systematic and detailed look at aspects of leadership, citizen participation, skills, resources, social networks, sense of community, understanding of community history, community power, community values, and critical reflection, and how they relate to/support each other. This paper is situated in the health sector.
  MacKendrick, N., and J. Parkins. 2005. Social dimensions of community vulnerability to mountain pine beetle. Victoria, BC: Canadian Forest Service. Working Paper 2005-26.

This paper includes an assessment of 13 communities in B.C. and Alberta. One of them is a First Nation community.

             "There is widespread recognition that the outbreak of mountain pine beetle will have significant social and economic impacts on forest-based comnmunities in British Columbia (BC). Although some communities can be assumed to be vulnerable owing to their proximity to infested regions, there is little knowledge as to the nature and extent of this vulnerability, representing a serious impediment to planning and policy making. This report presents the results of a vulnerability assessment in eleven communities in BC and two communities in Alberta located in regions experiencing various levels of mountain pine beetle activity.

              To assess community vulnerability, this project first builds a vulnerability framework based on social science research in the areas of climate change, community capacity, hazards management and risk perception, as well as focus group meeting in five of the study communities. Variables and indicators included in this framework are then measured and combined into a vulnerability index, with index scores assigned to each study community. The spatial variation in vulnerability is further illustrated using Geographic Information Systems analysis.

             The final assessment reflects that vulnerability is not simply a function of physical exposure to beetle activity, but also of various social, economic, and political factors that contribute to community adaptive capacity. Therefore, some communities loacated iun areas with high levels of beetle activity have less than expected vulnerability, owing to various capacities inheren in teh community, while in other areas with low to moderate levels of activity, vulnerability is somewhat elevated owing to a relative absence of these capacities." (Abstract)

  Maxim, P., J. White, and P. Whitehead. 2001. Toward an index of community capacity: Predicting community potential for successful program transfer. London, ON: Population Studies Centre, University of Western Ontario.
  This paper develops the human resources component of a community capacity index, while the social capital component is left for future work. The social capital component would include institutional completeness, governance capacity, and other key aspects of community capacity. This paper does not refer to forest-related capacity.

Ministry of Environment of Finland. 2001. Arctic Council Capacity Building Workshop: Workshop overview and recommendations. Discussion Paper. September 21, 2001.

  Trosper, R. 2003. Resilience in pre-contact Pacific Northwest social ecological systems. Conservation Ecology 7(3): 6.
  "If, like other ecosystems, the variable and dynamic ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest exhibited cycles and unpredictable behavior, particularly when humans were present, the indigenous societies of that region had to have been resilient in order to persist for such a long time. They persisted for two millennia prior to contact with people from the “old world.” The Resilience Alliance (2002) proposes that social and ecological resilience requires three abilities: the ability to buffer, the ability to self-organize, and the ability to learn. This paper suggests that the characteristics of the potlatch system among Indians on the Northwest Coast, namely property rights, environmental ethics, rules of earning and holding titles, public accountability, and the reciprocal exchange system, provided all three required abilities. The resulting resilience of these societies confirms the validity of many of the ideas now being discussed as important components in providing successful and sustainable relationships between humans and their ecosystems. That so many separate ideas seem to have been linked together into resilient systems in the Pacific Northwest suggests that social ecological resilience is complicated." (Abstract)

Sloan, G.L., and B. Welton. 1997. Haskell Indian Nations University: Holistic education in the natural resources. Journal of Forestry 95(100): 37-41.

  "This article focuses upon the natural resources program at Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas which prepares indigenous students to manage tribal forests without sacrificing their traditional beliefs and practices. After identifying four major obstacles to the entry of students in natural resource careers, the article turns to address how Haskell Indian Nations University works to relieve these barriers to education. Haskell chose to build its natural resources curriculum as a transfer program, not a technical-vocational one, therefore enabling students to transfer into a natural-resources-related program at a university granting a bachelor's program. This article addresses how Haskell University works and creates success for its students despite its limited funding. Not only do tribes and potential employers provide input, the Forest Service supports the program by funding the natural resources liaison position and the Bureau of Indian Affairs trust division provides money for administrative support and travel. The article concludes by addressing four factors that attribute to student success at Haskell University. The keys to success are: the ability to maintain cultural identity, the acceptance of challenges and opportunities offered by modern society, and the ability of bridging traditional and modern cultures." (annotation from the Annotated Bibliography of the Tl'azt'en Nation and the University of BC Community-University Research Alliance)
  Varghese, J. 2005. Social Impacts of, and Challenges for, Local Ownership in the Forest Sector. PhD Thesis. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Department of Rural Economy
  In Chapter 4 of this thesis, Varghese documents the community learning that comes from community ownership of forest-related enterprises and tenures in several cases across Canada. Several of the cases include Aboriginal communities. Varghese uses the term “community learning” to refer to both community capacity and social capital.
  Wortley, D., N. Krogman, and D. Davidson. 2001. The difficulties with devolution: Community-based forest management planning in the Yukon under Comprehensive Land Claims. Sustainable Forest Management Network Project Report # 2001-28.
  This report examines the role of the Alsek Renewable Resource Council in Yukon’s first forest management plan, and the challenges associated with the devolution of forest management planning responsibilities from the Federal, Territorial and Champagne and Aishihik First Nations’ Governments to a community agency – the Champagne and Aishihik Traditional Territory Forest Management Planning Team. Finalization of Yukon First Nation Comprehensive Land Claims and the subsequent formation of Renewable Resource Councils has created a framework for the involvement of communities who desire a meaningful role in Yukon forest management and policy development. This community-based forest management plan is being developed on two million hectares of Champagne and Aishihik’s Traditional Territory in southeast Yukon. Data for this project was collected primarily through interviews with community, forest industry, and government representatives. The results show that Yukon community members face a daunting task. The experiences of the Alsek Renewable Resource Council and the Champagne and Aishihik Planning Team illustrates that if community-based forest management planning is to succeed in the Yukon a number of conditions are required. Government must acknowledged that RRCs have a legally mandated role in forest management decision-making by developing specific policy for implementing RRC recommendations. Government must acknowledge that community-based groups have the capability to make informed decisions that will benefit both the community and the forests. In order to accomplish this foresters must work cooperatively with community members to ensure that the best possible forest data is made available to the participants in community-based forest management planning processes. New Government policy must be formulated to accommodate the recommendations of the community-based organizations. The investigators believe that for community members to remain actively involved in community-based management they must observe that their recommendations are implemented by Government. The investigator’s are of the opinion that in order to accomplish these criteria Government policy must strive to strengthen and maintain a trusting relationship between community and government partners.
  Capacity building for Aboriginal Peoples - other sectors
  Mignone, J. 2003. Measuring social capital: A guide for First Nations communities. December, 2003. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Research.
  There is little discussion of unique First Nations issues in this paper. However, examples and references are made to a related survey tool specifically tailored to First Nations.
  Capacity building in general
  Desjardins, S., G. Halseth, P. Leblanc, and L. Ryser. 2002. Services, social cohesion, and social capital: A literature review. July 15, 2002. New Rural Economy Project.
  Doak, S.C., and J. Kusel. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities, Part II: A social assessment focus. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project final report to Congress: Assessments and scientific basis for management options, pp. 375-402. Davis, CA: University of California Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
  "This chapter assesses the current state of community well-being throughout the Sierra Nevada through the analysis of a combination of socioeconomic and community capacity measures. Aggregations of census block groups were used as the primary analysis unit. One hundred and eighty "community" aggregations were identified across the study area, delineated within six regions. Information on community capacity was derived through a series of nineteen local expert
workshops. A case study of community capacity was conducted in Plumas County to examine the congruence of expert capacity assessment with community self-assessments. Socioeconomic data were developed from the 1990 Census of Population and Housing. A socioeconomic scale was developed from a diverse set of census measures to characterize the socioeconomic status of aggregations and to highlight similarities and variation across the Sierra Nevada. Aggregations were also characterized geographically by their spatial relationships to population centers, transportation corridors, and areas dominated by public lands, and a scale of relative isolation was developed from these spatial variables.

The relationships among socioeconomic factors, community capacity, and aggregation location and proximity to other geographic features are explored. Community capacity and socioeconomic status are found to be relatively independent, suggesting that they represent different dimensions of well-being that are not strongly related to each other. They are examined together in the discussion of wellbeing of the 180 aggregations." (Abstract)

  Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: an Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, United State Department
of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service, United States Department of the
interior Bureau of Land Management. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National
Park Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Capacity building is by no means the central concern of this landmark report. However, it does include one of the first attempts to define and assess capacity in forest-dependent communities and to predict how that capacity might allow the communities to adapt to specific forest policy proposals.
  Frank, F., and A. Smith. The Community Development Handbook: A Tool to Build Community Capacity. Ottawa, ON: Human Resources Development Canada. 81 pp.
  Institute on Governance. nd. Developing capacity for program management: A summary of the major conclusions of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

Institute on Governance. 2001. Capacity building handbook for public works. Ottawa, ON: Institute on Governance.

  Institute on Governance. 1999. Understanding governance in strong Aboriginal communities, Phase One: Principles and best practices from the literature. October 12, 1999. Ottawa, ON: Institute on Governance.
  Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities, Part I: A new approach. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project final report to Congress: Assessments and scientific basis for management options, pp. 361-375. Davis, CA: University of California Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Kusel, J. 2001. Assessing well-being in forest dependent communities. Journal of Forestry 13(1/2): 359-384.

  "This paper presents a new approach to the conceptualization and assessment of well-being in forest-dependent communities. Studies of well-being in agrarian communities, boomtowns (communities undergoing rapid growth), and forest-dependent communities are examined to highlight common themes in natural resource-dependent community studies. Social indicators are discussed and a summary of weaknesses presented. The county, a commonly used unit of analysis , is rejected in favor of a more socially relevant unit. This new approach to well-being in forest communities begins with definitions of the terms community and forest dependence. The work of Amartya Sen, whose conceptualization of well-being focuses on the real opportunities people have and their achievements in light of their opportunities, forms the foundation of the new approach proposed here. Sen's conceptualization is broadened by focusing on the community and acknowledging the importance of a sense of place. Methodologically, this new approach adds to the evaluation of social indicators an assessment of community capacity that consists of three components: physical, human, and social capital. It also involves evaluating how residents draw on and develop these aspects of their community to meet local needs and create opportunities. This results in a well-being assessment that includes static as well as dynamic measures of how communities respond to and create opportunities to improve local well-being." (Abstract)
  Lochner, K., I. Kawachi, and B.P. Kennedy. 1999. Social capital: A guide to its measurement. Health and Place 5: 259-270.
  "The primary aims of this paper are to review the concept of social capital and related constructs and to provide a brief guide to their operationalization and measurement. We focus on four existing constructs: collective efficacy, psychological sense of community, neighborhood cohesion and community competence. Each of these constructs taps into slightly different, yet overlapping aspects of social capital. The existence of several instruments to measure each of these constructs calls for further study into their use as measures of social capital. Despite differences in the approach to measurement, there is general agreement that community characteristics, such as social capital, should be distinguished from individual characteristics and measured at the community level." (Abstract)
  Mendis, S. 2004. Assessing Community Capacity for Ecosystem Management: Clayoquot Sound and Redberry Lake Biosphere Reserves. Master’s Thesis. Saskatoon, SK: University of Saskatchewan.

Ministry of Environment, Finland. 2001. Arctic Council Capacity Building Workshop: Workshop Overview and Recommendations. Discussion paper. September 21, 2001. Helsinki.

  This is a good, brief overview of capacity, what it is, some of the challenges, and some concrete recommendations to the Arctic Council for building its own capacity.

Nadeau, S., B. Shindler, and C. Kakoyannis. 1999. Forest communities: New frameworks for assessing sustainability. Forestry Chronicle 75(5): 747-754.

  This paper does not focus very strongly on capacity, but does situate this concept within the set of alternative frameworks, including community well-being and community resilience.
  Nadeau, S. 2002. Characterization of Community Capacity in a Forest-dependent Community: The Case of the Haut-St.-Maurice. PhD thesis. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
  Post-Delgamuukw Capacity Panel. 1999. Post-Delgamuukw Capacity Panel Final Report. January 27, 1999. Ottawa, ON: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
  Reimer, B. 2002. Understanding social capital: Its nature and manifestations in rural Canada. Paper presented at the CSAA Annual Conference, 2002, Toronto, ON. Draft. May 26, 2002.
  Reimer emphasizes the distinction that social capital is not converted into capacity unless it is actually used. In turn, actually using social capital requires that adequate "relational spheres" be available - including market, bureaucratic, associative, and communal processes. Thus, Reimer's model of capacity includes both social and other types of capital as well as relational spheres that produce discernable outcomes. In support of the need to assess capacity from an outcomes perspective, Reimer reports many cases where the availability of capital is related counterintuitively to the actual use of it - that is, in many cases, high levels of social capital are associated with low levels of utilization.

Schacter, M. 2000. "Capacity buildling": A new way of doing business for development assistance organizations. Policy Brief #6. Ottawa, ON: Institute on Governance.

  Reviews the challenges faced by international development assistance agencies in adopting a capacity-building perspective, and describes approaches to addressing the challenges.
  Schuller, T. 2001. The complementary roles of human and social capital. Isuma Spring 2001: 18-24.
  This brief paper contains a rich exploration of how different kinds of capital interact with each other. Can human capital substitute for social capital? Does high social capital help to build human capital? Schuller asks questions like this to provoke debate about how different kinds of capital fit together to create real capacity.
  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1997. Capacity development. Technical Advisory Paper 2. July, 1997. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.

This paper develops  a framework for capacity development that is organized around levels: individual, entity, interrelationships between entities, and enabling environments. At the time, the UNDP program focused on improving the enabling environment - institutional, socio-political, economic, and natural resources/environment.

  United Nations Development Program. 1998. Capacity Assessment and Development. Technical Advisory Paper No. 3. Bureau for Development Policy, United Nations Development Program.
  Williams, C. 2004. Community capacity building: A critical evaluation of the third sector approach. Review of Policy Research 21(5): 729-739.
  "Throughout the advanced economies, public policy has become ever more deeply involved in developing the capacities of communities to help themselves. Until now, this has been pursued through facilitating the development of community-based groups. The aim of this paper, however, is to critically evaluate the implications and legitimacy of this public policy approach that views developing community-based groups and community capacity building as synonymous. Drawing upon empirical evidence from the United Kingdom, it is here revealed that this third sector approach of developing community-based groups privileges a culture of community involvement that relatively few engage in and is more characteristic of affluent populations, while disregarding informal acts of one-to-one engagement that are both a more popular form of community involvement and also more characteristic of the participatory culture of less affluent populations. The paper concludes by exploring how public policy might respond, especially with regard to the finding that less affluent populations have relatively informal cultures of engagement."