|
NATIONAL ABORIGINAL FORESTRY ASSOCIATION |
| Home | About NAFA | Strategy | Membership | Publications | Jobs | Links | Archive |
Go to section: [ Contents | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Previous | Next ]
Based on the results of the research conducted for this study, there appear to be three broad sets of issues that could be usefully discussed among Aboriginal, industry, and government leaders and officials.
The forest industry is capital intensive and can be volatile for new entrants. Research for this paper has indicated that an intimate knowledge of the industry is a critical component of successful and long-term initiatives. Workshops on key elements of the forest industry could usefully include a discussion of the sources that First Nations might approach for effectively gaining sufficient industry knowledge. It is essential that First Nations companies and the general industry learn the mutual benefit that can be gained through collaboration. Mechanisms for conveying these opportunities and ways to facilitate collaboration could be addressed at focused workshops.
Aboriginal communities face unique circumstances, often differing greatly from one to another. Some First Nations have relatively long-standing experience in the forest industry and have established skill sets in areas such as logging, milling and silviculture. Others have relatively few technically recognized skills and little management expertise. It is critical that communities select partners with whom they have a strong relationship and a significant amount of trust. They must also design partnership structures that are appropriate for their situation and the resources at hand, a task which will often require a high degree of creativity. The case studies in the paper are intended to present some of the multitude of possibilities in designing a partnership in the forest industry.
In terms of partner motivations and the principle of fair exchange, the literature review identifies the need for both partners to agree on the value of the partnership. The C-Ged-Interpac case clearly illustrates the risk of failure if community priorities are not incorporated into partnership initiatives. Given the diversity of Aboriginal communities, the priorities for partnership will vary greatly. Innovative methods must be sought to assess priorities and incorporate unique community values into business relationships.
Mechanisms for developing capacity where it is lacking and identifying sources of capital support are long-standing concerns for Aboriginal communities, industry partners, and government. The case studies identify several players key to improving the capacity for First Nations to exploit business and employment opportunities. The roles and potential roles for forest industry partners, government and First Nations themselves in this regard require innovation and willingness to share both risk and benefit.
Incorporating cultural and environmental objectives into business partnerships adds an additional challenge to designing effective partnerships. The Little Red River Cree Nation/Tallcree case presented in this paper illustrates successful and innovative cooperative management among industry, government and First Nations. This case may prompt discussion as to other ways that both First Nations and partners can work toward the preservation of traditional land use activity.
Opinions on the optimal scope and nature of the role of governments are mixed. It is quite obvious that provincial governments could utilize their legislative authority to develop forest policy that favours Aboriginal-industry partnerships. Acquiring tenure and forest licences are vital to Aboriginal community development. With tenure or forest licences in hand, Aboriginal partnerships become more attractive to non-Aboriginal firms. With few exceptions, the awarding of such tenure rights to Aboriginal companies is a new phenomenon. All four case studies conducted for this report illustrate the importance of tenure to Aboriginal participation in the forest industry. As well, Aboriginal forest values could be accorded more weight in consultation and forest management planning processes thereby assuring Aboriginal Peoples that their concerns or issues, such as traditional land use, will be addressed.
The literature review and case studies did identify several other possible government functions in terms of supporting Aboriginal-industry partnerships:
There seems to be a consensus that government should not have a lead role in negotiating partnerships and should not be involved closely with the ongoing operations of any Aboriginal company.
Additional suggestions were raised during discussions with case study participants that require further exploration. These include:
(a) the government's obligation to better enforce existing regulations;
(b) the potential for better use of government procurement policies that would result in more contracts for Aboriginal businesses; and
(c) the potential for improving Aboriginal business opportunities through the more effective operation of the government's regulatory authority relating to forests on First Nation reserves.
Partnerships are not created unless there is mutual benefit to all parties involved. In the forest sector, the overlapping interests of various segments of society in forested lands requires that there be cooperation in management and a sharing of benefits from the resource base. In the past, resource development activities have excluded Aboriginal Peoples. However, there are now numerous other forces driving the formation of Aboriginal partnerships in the forest sector (see part 2 of this paper).
Forest companies can benefit from partnerships with Aboriginal communities in a number of different ways:
(a) From an operational point of view, there is access to the Aboriginal labour force, an established knowledge of the land base within the Aboriginal community and Aboriginal partners can bring investment capital and infrastructure support to partnerships.
(b) Partnerships can be integral components of land claim settlements and to tenure arrangements which address Aboriginal interests in certain lands thus bringing greater certainty of wood supply.
(c) From a management point of view, Aboriginal participation through partnerships is a step toward Sustainable Forest Management and achievement of certification (see page 9).
(d) From a public relations point of view, corporate image can be improved through sensitivity to social, environmental and Indigenous Peoples' issues.
These benefits not only have individual value, but they also affect one another positively. In a general sense, the overall greatest benefit of Aboriginal partnerships is the stability brought about through a long-term shared vision of what the proposed forestry operations will encompass.
Both the literature review and discussions with case study contacts highlighted the potential value of an Aboriginal non-governmental organization (NGO) that could support Aboriginal companies to negotiate and design partnerships. Such an organization could be a resource for much-needed advice on the industry. In addition, some have suggested that the same organization could act as a broker, facilitating Aboriginal-forest industry partnerships. Some have suggested that an industry association for Aboriginal businesses could take on such a role, a notion supported by the literature review. Other players in the non-profit sector may have roles to play in helping partnerships establish themselves and prosper. For example, industry associations in the forest sector have from time to time played a role in documenting partnership activity and advising their members. The recently formed Aboriginal Human Resources Council is another potential player. Its mandate is to seek partnerships with businesses to improve access to jobs for Aboriginal peoples.
The preceding list of key issues is meant to provide a focus for further discussion on how partnerships can be developed with minimal misunderstanding. Growth in Aboriginal - forest sector partnerships has been greatly assisted by the presence of government policy which holds that Aboriginal people should derive benefit from the forest resources that surround their communities. Both the Federal and provincial governments have a major role to play in this area. As noted, the five provinces that were mentioned in section 2 of this paper have developed policy more conducive to partnerships involving Aboriginal communities. To-date, activities are far from ideal, but solutions can be found through sharing of information.
Studies that investigated international and Canadian cases (sections 3 to 5 of this paper) suggest trends in partnerships between industry and indigenous communities. Integral building blocks for constructing a successful partnership were discussed, which include:
Using this knowledge of existing partnerships can positively affect current endeavours in two ways. Learning can take place through the example of those partnerships that have or have not succeeded. Determining the shortcomings of unsuccessful partnerships is as important as finding the sources for successful partnerships. The recognition of shortcomings will only make future decisions easier. In terms of successful partnerships, these can direct those starting out, where the methods that work can be applied and improved upon.
The number, type and location of partnerships is not balanced across Canada. This is demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, which show that there are more joint ventures and forest services contracting in the west and more socio-economic partnerships in the east. This pattern, while not based on an exhaustive survey, is a strong one and suggests a variation in policies and Aboriginal-forest sector relations, motivations and intentions across the country.
To encourage successful partnerships, which create increased employment, new business development, and other Aboriginal community benefits, there are many obstacles to be overcome. The process must be innovative, with implementation applicable to the needs and structure of individual communities. For the benefit of industry, such partnerships are capable of stabilizing operations, improving timber supply and market access, and enhancing corporate image. Government policy and legislation conducive to Aboriginal partnerships must still be developed and put into action and this must be done cooperatively, involving industry and Aboriginal communities and their organizations.
1 "Discussion Paper: Co-management and Other Forms of Agreement in the Forest Sector", April 1995.
2 "Exploring the Relationship Between Aboriginal Peoples and The Canadian Forest Industry: Some Industry Perspectives", June 1998.
3 In Delgamuukw, the Supreme Court of Canada required governments to recognize and respect Aboriginal title and established principles concerning the existence of Aboriginal title and Aboriginal rights. The impact of Delgamuukw on provincial forestry management practices in British Columbia will be far reaching as First Nations establish their title and rights over time. See "Consultation Guidelines", Ministry of Forests, British Columbia, September 1999, developed to address Aboriginal issues in planning and operations.
4 Lewis, M. 1996. Aboriginal Joint Ventures. In Making Waves, Vol. 7, No. 4. Centre for Community Enterprise, Port Alberni, BC.
Go to section: [ Contents | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Previous | Next ]
| Home | About NAFA | Strategy | Membership | Publications | Jobs | Links | Archive |
This page was updated: May 16, 2002 | Contact NAFA |
Website feedback | Site updated by Soleica Inc.
