Growing deep roots: Increasing Aboriginal authority in contemporary forest governance arrangements

Governance as a driver of change in the Canadian boreal zone1

“…The first three relate to empirical trends in international governance outlined by Krott et al (2014): (i) a shift in the role of government from regulation to marketization, (ii) crosssectoral integration, and (iii) decentralization or a shift in authority or responsibility from centralized national and provincial jurisdiction to lower levels of jurisdiction. The fourth theme is Indigenous empowerment and reflects the evolving recognition of Indigenous rights and attendant prescriptions on Canadian laws and institutions (Fortier et al 2012;Beaudoin et al 2015;Zurba et al 2016). Finally, the fifth theme is geopolitics that refers to the influence of international pressures on Canada's natural resources policies (Howlett 2001a).…”

“…Many reports suggest that Indigenous peoples' role in decisionmaking in resource development is inadequate (FNFC 2010). Most relationships between Indigenous communities and the Crown in Canada are criticized for a lack of involvement by Indigenous peoples in the land planning processes and the lack of need for consent before industrial activities take place (Alcantara 2008;Beaudoin et al 2015;Smith 2015). Both the CLS and the First Nations Land Management Act (1999) fall into this category (Alcantara 2007;Beaudoin et al 2015;Smith 2015).…”

“…Comanagement agreements are more inclusive and based on negotiation rather than litigation; however, the authority to assign decision-making power is still typically retained by the provincial and federal governments (Campbell 1996;Penikett 2012;Wyatt 2016). For example, the Essipit Nation of northern Quebec have an mutually beneficial agreement with a forestry corporation, but they are still "at arm's length" (Beaudoin et al 2015, p. 292) in decision-making, as they participate only through meetings, pub-lic hearings, and conversations (Beaudoin et al 2015). Furthermore, comanagement agreements are not always beneficial for ecosystem services as agreements made with the private sector can be unfair and lead to unsustainable practices, and ecosystem management ideals may conflict with Indigenous values, where some communities believe they are part of the landscape and do not possess the power to manage it (Campbell 1996;Stevenson 1998;Parsons and Prest 2003;Stevenson 2006;Wyatt 2016).…”

“…Alternatively, an increase in the demand for NPrES and increased environmental regulation (stricter policies and better enforcement) may cause the social license for extraction to be removed (Prno and Slocombe 2012). The increase in the demand for NPrES may also increase the capacity and involvement of Indigenous communities, as Indigenous culture places high value around NPrES in Traditional Knowledge and land uses, which is argued to be essential to sustainable forestry (Huntington 2000;Beaudoin et al 2015;Uprety et al 2017). Increases in the demand for both PrES and NPrES have the potential to lead to more sustainable policies because of overlapping needs (Davies and Mazumder 2003), but more often than the focus is on developing PrES over NPrES (Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010;Zheng et al 2016).…”

Indigenous peoples and collaborative forest governance in northern forests: examining changes in policies, institutions, and communities

“…Existing research on Indigenous participation in resource management provides some important insights regarding the qualities of collaboration in the field of resource management, including topics such as institutional design and power-sharing (Hibbard et al 2008;Lawler and Bullock 2017;Rodon 2018), Indigenous values and worldviews (Spak 2005;Stevenson 2006;Houde 2007;von der Porten and de Loë 2013;Beaudoin et al 2015), the integration of science and traditional knowledge (Moller et al 2004;Armitage et al 2011), social and cross-cultural learning (Castro and Nielsen 2001;Natcher et al 2005;Berkes 2009), and corporate social responsibility (Cameron and Levitan 2014;Papillon and Rodon 2017;Wyatt and Teitelbaum 2018). Research is helping to build a portrait of Indigenous participation in the resource sector; however, more work is needed to keep abreast of new initiatives and the rapidly evolving legal and policy context at both national and international levels.…”