Principle – Society accepts responsibility for sustainability.

Criterion- Recognition and respect for Aboriginal roles in sustainable forest management (Aboriginal Rights, Treaty Rights and aboriginal values).

Indicator – Original Wording: Extent of Aboriginal participation in forest-based economic opportunities (6.2.1). Number of Aboriginal communities with a significant forestry component in the economic base and diversity of forest use at the community level (6.2.3). Final Wording: Assess the extent of Aboriginal participation in forest-based opportunities.

Box B: Definition:

This indicator assesses the degree to which Aboriginal participate in forest opportunities, specifically economic opportunities.

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners. Explain any differences:

This indicator is not equally applicable to all landowners as it is most applicable to assess at the forest management unit level. Some landowners (e.g., government landowners or private tenures on public lands) may be required to specifically address Aboriginal concerns. Other landowners, e.g., private industries, have voluntary initiatives regarding creating or maintaining employment opportunities for Aboriginal people.

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR – BAG: 2.2 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2.4 2.2.2 2.2.3 1.1.3 2.3.1

CCFM: 6.1.1 6.2.2. 6.2.4

Notes: This indicator is descriptive of the current conditions associated with Aboriginal peoples. Some trend data may be available from some organization such as the Canadian Forestry Service or the National Aboriginal Forestry Association. The presence of trend data would enable this indicator to be used in a more predictive fashion.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

The indicator is based on the assumption that Aboriginal people are either more likely to be forest-dependent or forest-dwelling peoples and that therefore opportunities for economic pursuits in the forests are necessary for well-being or that the well being of traditionally forest-based people is best maintained by providing forest-based opportunities.

The Canadian Council of Forest Ministries Criteria and Indicators document that proposed this indicator defines ‘forest-based opportunities’ specifically as ‘forest industry-related activities’. However, this industry-based definition, while perhaps the easiest to track, is only one aspect of livelihood opportunities available from the forest. This method of defining opportunities does not include those in the informal sector for example: forest or watershed restoration livelihoods; shake cutters; fire-wood cutters; and wood-artisans (e.g., carving) or other non-timber forest products opportunities.

In some jurisdictions, there are specific endeavors initiated by government, Aboriginal groups or forest industries for Aboriginal involvement in forest industry activities. For example, some Canadian provinces have awarded forest licenses to Aboriginal communities and some Tribal lands have forest operations on them run by Aboriginal industries or through cooperative initiatives with industries.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable 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 use of forest land – be it subsistence or commercial fishing, hunting, trapping or gathering – affects forest management and thus, forest management planning. Where Aboriginal peoples have rights for traditional, ceremonial, subsistence, or commercial harvest of timber, the relevance to sustainable forest management is also clear. As sustaining human well being is one important aspect of sustainability, respecting aboriginal and treaty rights is an important first level in assessing sustainability.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Measurement methods possible for assessing this indicator include:

1. correlation of census data by SIC and ethnicity (infrequently collected but trend data available);
2. correlation of other SIC or employment data by ethnicity (e.g., County Data Books or ICBEP); or
3. specific surveys on Aboriginal issues for all criteria J indicators focusing for this indicator on employment in formal and informal forest-related economic activities by ethnicity as a proportion of total employment (studies could be specific for Aboriginal people and could be conducted by Aboriginal forestry groups).

Box L: Data Required:

Census information (completed every 10 years in the USA and 5 years in Canada) provides some data to assess this indicator including forest-industry related employment (by Standard Industrial Classification Codes) by ethnicity (including classifications for Aboriginal peoples). Census data is collected relatively infrequently, is self-reported and where ethnicity is an optional classification code. SIC codes do not capture informal sector forest-based employment.

US County Data Books also contain some of this information regarding SIC code employment and ethnicity and are more current.

From 1984 to 1992, the Canadian Indian Lands Forestry Program, Natural Resources Canada – Canadian Forest Service provided estimates of round wood production as well as some information on the revenues generated from forestry activities on reserve lands. Additionally, a number of studies in Canada, including: Aboriginal Forestry Training and Employment Review, the Class Environmental Assessment for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario and the Lands, Revenues and Trusts Forestry Review have examined Aboriginal economic involvement in the forest industry (CCFM, 1997).

In Canada, the Canadian Forestry Service has collected data for past years regarding some Aboriginal forestry activities including on-reserve forestry activities (CCFM, 1997). Since the creation of the National Aboriginal Forestry Association, founded in 1991, a number of studies on Aboriginal participation in forestry activities and surveys of participation in business and economic opportunities have been collected. Much of this data is sporadic or selective as it focuses on membership-only surveys.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test :

County data for the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) uses US Bureau of Census, County data and other sources to assemble employment by industry, by county; employment by occupation, by county; and race and ethnicity, by county. The original data, available from the Census Bureaus’ bulletin board service or the ICBEMP project could be reanalyzed to provide county-based employment by industry or occupation by ethnicity comparisons.

No specific studies on employment by Aboriginal people are available although the Hanes (1995) ICBEMP report on American Indian Interest does provide some background on self-governance and economic growth.

Box N: Example Results:

Employment by American Indians

Employment by American Indians in the formal sector can be calculated by comparing occupation by ethnicity by county. Precompiled data sets were used for this example and consequently the data are not cross tabulated. The first table shows the percentage of American Indians (self-report from census data) by county within the study area. Data show that four of the six counties examined report marginally higher percentages of Native Americans than the national averages. The second table illustrates the total number of formal forest sector jobs by county. If original data were available, a comparison of the two would illustrate the total number of Native Americans employed in formal, forest sector jobs as compared either to non-Native Americans or to total employment by Native Americans.

1 Counties of which some portion falls within the Test Study Area.

Specific Initiatives for Employment

ICBEMP reports also summarize data on lands under tribal jurisdiction (McGinnis and Christensen, 1996). While there are 19 American Indian reservations and 1 colony that are wholly or partially within the interior basin counties, none of these lands are within the Boise Study Area. A relatively small population of American Indians and a lack of Indian Lands in the BNF have resulted in a lack of local pressure to address employment issues.

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (P.L. 93-638,88 Stat. 2203; 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq) provided a mechanism for tribal funding and the 1994 amendments to this act expanded the authority of tribes to provide tribal services formerly provided by government agencies. This act and other initiatives have sought mechanisms to enable tribes to get support for employment and employment training under co-payment schemes with the agencies. Lack of agreement regarding cost-sharing along with lack of pressure have prevented implementation of these types of programs on the BNF.

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

While there are inherent limitations in these data bases, census or county employment data can be easily assessed and tracked over time to give Aboriginal employment trend data. Such analysis is an exceptionally inexpensive measure and could be combined with other forest-based employment studies conducted for other indicators.

A specific study of employment in formal and informal forest-based sectors would be more costly (standard social science survey data estimates are available) but this survey could collect information on a variety of indicators and thus be more cost effective.

A specific Aboriginal study of employment (e.g., by the Canadian National Aboriginal Forestry Association studies) would provide exceptionally useful information that could be measured repeatedly but may be at a scale that is too large for any specific study area.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

This indicator provides information both on employment levels and potentially the diversification of economic opportunities in forest-based employment for Aboriginal people. The indicator will allow an assessment of one aspect of the connection or dependence of Aboriginal people to forest-based opportunities.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

This indicator was accepted as a partial measure of the connection or relationship of Aboriginal people to forested environments. The strength of the measure is its ability to assess the mainstream employment aspects of relationship to forested environments while the weaknesses are that data available do not typically allow for a measure of employment opportunities in all forest-related opportunities nor is forest-based employment a complete measure of Aboriginal connections with forested ecosystems.

Box R: Did you rewrite or revise to a new indicator. If so what?

No

Box S: References:

• Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1997. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada. Technical Report 1997. Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa, ON
• Hanes, R.C. 1995 (DRAFT). American Indian Interest in the Northern Intermontane of Western North America. Social Assessment Report for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. ICEBEMP.
• MIG, Inc. (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc), IMPLAN System (1995 data and software), 1940 South Greeley Street, Suite 101, Stillwater, MN 55082, www.implan.com, 1997.
• McGinnis, W.J., and H. H. Christensen. 1996. The Interior Columbia River Basin: Patterns of Population, Employment and Income Change. USDA-FS, PNW-GTR-358.
• 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.