Principle – Accepting society’s responsibility for sustainable development.

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

Indicator – Area of forest land available for subsistence purposes.

Box B: Definition:

For Aboriginal communities in forested areas, subsistence involves hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering. Subsistence is defined as "the minimum food and shelter necessary to support life" while subsistence activities are defined as "harvesting or growing products directly for personal or family livelihood" (CCFM, 1997).

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

This is applicable to all landowners for whom aboriginal rights or treaty rights overlap their jurisdictions. However, some landowners in particular geographic areas may not be affected by this indicator.

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 6.2.1. 6.2.2

Notes: This indicator is descriptive of the current conditions associated with Aboriginal peoples. While data to support this indicator is relatively scarce, 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:

This indicator is based on the legal concept of Aboriginal Rights to subsistence activities. In Canada, Section 35 of the Constitution Act recognizes subsistence activities as a constitutional Aboriginal Right. The definition of subsistence activities and the allocation of areas available for subsistence, including timing and quantity of material taken, have been further defined under law (i.e., Sparrow vs. Regina). Similar legislation exists in other jurisdiction (CCFM, 1997). Saskatchewan’s Forest Resources Management Act allows Aboriginal people to gather such items as medicinal plants and fallen wood for personal or family use without requiring a license.

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 U.S. 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.

In addition to the constitutional or legislative protection of subsistence rights, the ethical context for subsistence is based on the traditional and historic dependency of Aboriginal people to the natural environment. In addition to providing food and shelter, subsistence activities provide a cultural connection to the land through activities such as gathering medicinal plants and support the acquisition or retention of native language of life ways and customs. The retention of culture is recognized as a fundamental right.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Measurement of this indicator could include some or all of the following concepts:

1. an assessment of the number of Aboriginal people involved in subsistence activities;
2. the purpose for the subsistence activity (e.g., food, shelter or ceremonial use);
3. the extent of the forest management unit available for subsistence activities (by activity);
4. the degree of utilization of the land available for subsistence activities;
5. the satisfaction with the amount or allocation of lands available for subsistence activities (e.g., does the amount or location of lands meet needs); or
6. the compliance of the forest management unit operation with legislatively or constitutionally protected rights for subsistence use.

Assessment of each of these six concepts would involve slightly different methodologies from interviews or surveys with Aboriginal people (concepts 1, 2 and 5), to an extensity/intensity study of land use by the forest manager (concepts 4 and 5), to a legal analysis (concept 6).

Box L: Data Required:

In Canada, data currently available on subsistence activities (either the number of people involved in subsistence activities or the areal extent of these activities) is insufficient to determine the amount of forest land required or even available for subsistence purposes. One source of information is the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Canada which maintains a database on Aboriginal trappers. A number of Aboriginal communities have also included subsistence use as part of their study of traditional use activities.

In the U.S., land available for subsistence activities and the adequacy of that area is similarly difficult to track. Recognized Indian tribes would be one primary source of this information (see USDA-FS, 1997, for a listing of recognized tribes). Indian Country is a legal term used in the U.S. to describe territorial boundaries of Indian tribal governments. Indian Country is defined by Federal statute (18 U.S.C. 1151) and "includes all land, regardless of ownership, within the exterior boundaries of Federally Recognized Indian reservations (USDI, Office of American Indian Trust in USDA-FS, 1997. Indian homelands denotes that some land ownership patterns within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations vary. In some of these cases, all lands within the reservation boundaries are held in trust by the United States. On other reservations, "all land within the boundaries is Indian-owned, but some is tribal trust land, and some is held in trust for individuals, with the United States acting as trustee for the individual allottee" (USDA-FS, 1997). Tribes normally have jurisdiction over Indian Country, consequently regulatory jurisdiction may extend to an area "significantly larger than the lands actually in Indian ownership" as many reservations are a tiny fraction of the tribe’s aboriginal territory (USDA-FS, 1997). Land available for subsistence use includes at least some portion, if not all of Indian Country but may also include other lands outside of Indian Country if subsistence rights have been allocated to an even larger area.

In the U.S., off-reservation rights for property, hunting and fishing, grazing, water rights and gathering rights. These rights are specific to each treaty which are binding on states as equivalent to Federal laws. Specific to the nature of the treaty language, the FS Regional Forester may authorize: treaty-based grazing permits; up to 50 percent of harvestable salmon and steelhead in certain waterways covered by treaties as long as escapement goals are met; access to "usual and accustomed grounds and stations" for hunting and fishing; rights to gather miscellaneous forest products such as berries, roots, bark from trees, mushrooms, basket making materials, teepee poles, cedar for totem poles, fuel and firewood, and medicinal plants (USDA-FS, 1997).

In Mexico, over 60% of the land is owned by Ejiro’s, communal land properties overwhelmingly owned by Mestico’s, people of mixed Hispanic-Indigenous origin. Consequently the land available for subsistence use is roughly equivalent to the proportion of Mestico owned Ejiro’s. Allowable subsistence activities and extent of use would be determined by contacting the individual Ejiro’s.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Data used for the North American test consisted of:

• Hanes, R.C. 1995. (DRAFT) American Indian Interests in the Northern Intermontane of Western North America. A Social Assessment Report for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.
• Interview with Boise National Forest Archaeologist Will Reed
• USDA-FS. 1997. Forest Service National Resource Book on American Indian and Alaska Native Relations. FS-600.

The Boise National Forest 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan, accompanying EIS documents or the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Scoping document made no reference to subsistence activities and uses.

Neither the Idaho State Department of Lands nor private industrial forest industries are subject to subsistence rights issues.

Existing Subsistence Use in the Study Area

BNF Archaeologist noted that defining actual subsistence use including extensity and intensity of use is difficult on the Boise. As no legislated Indian Lands occur within the study area and the populations of American Indians in the study area are relatively low, expressed subsistence use or demand on the Boise National Forest is perceived to be low. BNF staff are unsure, however, whether subsistence use activities are occurring (e.g., gathering) but are just unobserved or unrecorded. Treaties do allow for subsistence use and it is expected that subsistence use rights in general could be supported for the study area. Fishing rights have been allocated within the Boise National Forest as an expression of treaty rights.

Subsistence Ranges

Hanes (1995) identifies the subsistence range as the "broadest notion of place for tribal governments, communities and individuals". The boundaries of these subsistence areas are fluid, tend to overlap between tribes, and include areas encompassing the widest range of subsistence use. The subsistence range is not necessarily the same area that is currently recognized as an area where aboriginal rights can be extended.

Nez Perce and Shoshone Bannock Approximated Subsistence Ranges

(Source: Walker, 1993 in Hanes, 1995)

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

Subsistence use studies, either qualitative or quantitative could be combined with other indicator measurement to reduce costs and respondent impact but would undoubtedly require specific institutional arrangements with Aboriginal Tribal governments unless permits or licenses are required for subsistence activities. A comparison of amount and type of land available with satisfaction would give a baseline to monitor changes in conditions. These measures can be repeatedly measured.

The area of the forest management unit available for subsistence use (by activity) could be easily assessed by the forest manager and compared with the legislative/constitutional or management plan requirements. This measure could be conducted repeatedly and inexpensively. Intensity of use would require the participation of Aboriginal people in a study unless a permit or similar system were currently in place to monitor these activities.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value :

By the nature of its definition, this indicator will provide relatively high information value, particularly land available for subsistence activities is compared to satisfaction with this availability.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Accepted.

The strength of this indicator is that it helps assess the accessibility of the forest management unit to Aboriginal people while the weaknesses are related to the difficulty that may be encountered in obtaining this information and the reality that merely making land available for subsistence activities does not guarantee cultural health.

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.
• McConnell, L. 1995. National Forest Land Use Planning: The Legal Requirements and Cultural Needs of American Indians. In: Managing Forests to Meet People's Needs: Proceedings of the 1994 Society of American Foresters/Canadian Institute of Forestry Convention, Anchorage, AK, Sept. 18-22. Bethesda: Society of American Foresters, pp. 351-356.
• Miller, Ronald K. 1997. Southwest Woodlands: Cultural Uses of the "Forgotten Forest." Journal of Forestry 98(11):24-28.
• [For centuries, Native Americans of the Southwest have used woodland resources for a wide variety of practical and ceremonial uses. Current strategies focus on integrated management guided by tribal culture and priorities. Woodland areas are being managed for the production of fuelwood, posts and poles, pi-on nuts, and other traditional commodities. Nonconsumptive uses of the woodland are equally important and include ceremonial uses and areas set aside for wildlife habitat, recreation, and scenic beauty.]
• 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. 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.
• Walker, D.E. 1993. The Shoshone-Bannock: An Anthropological Reassessment. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes. Vol. 27(2):139-160