Original Wording:

CCFM 6.1 Aboriginal and treaty rights

CCFM 6.2 Participation by Aboriginal communities in sustainable forest management.

Final Wording: Recognize and respect Aboriginal roles in sustainable forest management (Aboriginal Rights, Treaty Rights and aboriginal values).

Box B: Attributes

Justify your selection of the Criterion in Box A. Please ensure you discuss its relationship to theory:

This criterion measures the extent to which forest planning and management processes consider and meet legal obligations with respect to Aboriginal and treaty rights. Aboriginal use of forest land—be it subsistence or commercial fishing, hunting, trapping gathering—affects forest management and thus, forest management planning. Each country defines Aboriginal people and their inherent and treaty rights differently and thus will be interpreted differently at different scales. These rights are in part defined by law and in some cases through land claims negotiations, treaties or treaty renegotiations. In some jurisdictions, Aboriginal people are recognized as sovereign nations or as not just another stakeholder consequently the rights of Aboriginal people with respect to forest management are considered distinctly from other stakeholder groups (e.g,. CIFOR-BAG 2.0 or CCFM 5.0/6.3. In some jurisdictions the right to be consulted on resource management decisions is the fiduciary responsibility of the government (i.e., British Columbia’s Protection of Aboriginal Rights Policy).

Relationship to Sustainable Management

In Canada, more than 80% of Aboriginal communities lie in the productive forest zones of Canada. Similarly, in the US and Mexico, many aboriginal groups are forest peoples. Aboriginal people have been living in these areas in some cases for upwards of 10,000 years and consequently have unique cultural and spiritual connections with the land and an intimate knowledge of forest ecosystems. This traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) can enhance the ecological understanding of forested systems and forest management techniques. In some cases, aboriginal peoples will be active forest managers or co-managers (CIFOR –BAG Criteria 2.0) of the resource.

Revision of Criterion

The two original criterion, CCFM 6.1 and CCFM 6.2 were combined to one singular criterion. Criterion 6.1 was abstract and needed to be defined more fully to be useful. The final wording combines these two criterion and retains all original concepts including Aboriginal Rights (those inherently defined by Constitutional Law), Treaty Rights (specific rights ascribed through an individual treaty between a Nation and a Government) and aboriginal values (a broader concept that would refer to archaeological features, spiritual places, cultural landscapes, etc.). This criterion is defined in an inclusive as opposed to exclusive manner.

Context by Country

While both Canada and the U.S. recognize Aboriginal peoples as sovereign nations, the recognition of rights and the context of Aboriginal people varies significantly from country to country to such an extent that even the names used to refer to Aboriginal people vary. This renders the development of a common set of indicators and comparisons between countries difficult. In Canada, Aboriginal groups or peoples (referred to as First Nations) and the associated Aboriginal and Treaty Rights are constitutionally protected. Interpretation of these rights is very fluid with new treaties currently being negotiated and older treaties or Aboriginal rights subject to interpretation by the courts. Most court cases deal with constitutional challenges. While these Aboriginal or Treaty rights are often uncertain, the constitutional protection afforded them, once defined, results in minimal discretionary latitude by resource managers in decisions involving Aboriginal rights or values. As a result, Aboriginal rights are recognized and relatively firmly protected in Canada.

In the U.S., a number of laws address issues or rights pertaining to American Indian people (see the USDA-FS. Forest Service National Resource Book on American Indian and Alaska Native Relations as a partial guide). The U.S. Constitution (1871), within the Indian Commerce Clause, as well as numerous treaties established "the existence of Indian tribes as sovereign (independent) nations and terminated the end of the formal treaty-making process. Sovereignty, applied to only recognized Indian Tribes although other Indian groups may seek recognition through litigation (USDA-FS, 1997). While the constitution affords recognition of sovereignty and the notion of "domestic dependent nations" most Treaty or Indian rights are established through legislation or through executive order. A range of American Indian acts and resource management acts address the recognition of rights and values and the involvement of Aboriginal peoples in resource management activities. Similar to Canada, these rights are being further defined in the courts and the legislation and its interpretation and implementation is fluid. In contrast to the constitutional protection of significantly more specific Aboriginal or Treaty rights in Canada, the legislative establishment of rights in the U.S. means that clarification is also needed on which legislation over-rides the other and may result in more discretion for the resource manager at a local level.

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1996. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada. Technical Report.

National Aboriginal Forestry Association. 1993. Forest lands and resources for Aboriginal people: An intervenor submission to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal peoples.

National Aboriginal Forestry Association. 1995. Aboriginal participation in forest management: Not just another "stakeholder."

National Aboriginal Forestry Association. 1996. Aboriginal forest-based ecological knowledge in Canada.

Notzke, Claudia. 1994. Aboriginal peoples and natural resources in Canada. Captus University Publications.

USDA-FS. 1997. Forest Service National Resource Book on American Indian and Alaska Native Relations. FS-600.

Please name (give the reference of) the Criterion that overlap (come closest) to the Criterion that has been selected for evaluation:

CIFOR: -

CIFOR – BAG: 2.0 1.0 1.2

CCFM: 5.0

Idaho: -

GFE: -

Identify linkages between Criterion, to ensure that the same or similar information is not collected twice and to ascertain whether the necessary feedback loops exist between criterion.

Information on aboriginal and treaty rights informs forest management planning and implementation activities through the identification of traditional knowledge useful for planning to the mapping of critical or sensitive resources. Similarly, traditional ecological information including traditional boundaries may provide useful information for ecological/biophysical criteria.

Final version of Criterion, state only if different to definition in Box A: