Background

What are the pathways to protection and stewardship of old growth forests that are respectful to First Nations rights and title and rural communities while providing feasible economic options to extractive industries?

First, the problem with our laws…

Most British Columbians believe we have laws to protect the environment. Because of regulatory loopholes, these laws don’t protect as much as permit extraction.

For example, the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation states that government has objectives on forest lands for the protection of soil, wildlife, fish, biodiversity, water, climate and recreation but at the end of every regulation are the words “this objective applies only to the extent that it does not unduly reduce the supply of timber from BC forests.”

Timber as a land use trumps all regardless of what the statute sets out to protect.

The fundamental problem is that as a society we don’t value old growth forests, endangered species, the health of land, forests and water, or the people that steward these lands. Our laws reflect that. The reason issues like Fairy Creek arise is that there are no ways to stop logging ancient forests or endangered species habitat unless you stand in front of the bulldozers.

And the problem with our economics…​

Rural communities, including First Nations, have few options for revenue and livelihoods other than extractive industries.

In the absence of adequate funding for social services like housing, health, education and cultural programs, and legal actions, logging revenues are the only options. There are very few ways to get out of this dependency.

As government loses the social licence to log the last remnants of old growth, the politically expedient route has been to create revenue-sharing agreements with First Nations in these controversial areas. Government directs citizens to take their concerns to the tenure holders who are forest companies and occasionally First Nations. The tenure holders respond by explaining that they have revenue sharing agreements with First Nations.

This situation pits small groups of people against one another. It is a classic divide and conquer situation and most British Columbia citizens are confused over who to take their concerns to… but they know that something is wrong.

The obvious solutions proposed by generations of First Nation communities are to…

  1. Deliver the same level of government social services per capita to FN as non-FN communities,
  2. Pardon debt incurred through treaty negotiations, or buying out licences;
  3. Stop leveraging First Nations’ debt for revenue-sharing with extractive industries which removes other options;
  4. Invest in regenerative businesses, provide capital loans/grants like other non-FN entrepreneurs.

In the meantime, are there economic alternatives that allies can assist with?

The dependency of rural communities on extractive industries is changing. It has to; the timber is running out. Federal policy on climate, biodiversity and reconciliation have increasingly been favouring nature directed solutions like guardian programs and Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas through what are called reconciliation agreements. This transition policy has created financial options that meet ecological, social and economic needs that weren’t available even two years ago.

The governance structures to support these financial options are being led at government-to-government levels by First Nations. These agreements are not well understood by the general public—but that is changing too. There are two ways that urban communities can support First Nation communities in reaching these common goals:

  • as voters for policy and budget towards FN-led forest stewardship and conservation
  • as buyers of ecosystem services, e.g., water conservation, biodiversity and carbon. Currently carbon is the only real ecosystem service that is monetized.

The main solution as a society is to value forests, water and wildlife and the people who steward them. In the interim, we need to protect the little that is left in the best way possible.

Declaration

We recognize;
  • Changing from extraction dependency to a more sustainable path must respect Indigenous rights and titles,
  • When Indigenous stewardship of lands are secured, alternative economic opportunities can emerge,
  • Each First Nation is unique and their needs for economic security, employment, health and wellbeing, and cultural heritage vary,
    • Some First Nations are beneficiaries of existing revenue sharing agreements and are engaged in a variety of forest-related enterprises; some Nations have signed treaties; others are engaged in various negotiations related to reconciliation and rights and title.

What are the funding streams?

Seven funding streams have been used by First Nation communities in various combinations which complement one another. A First Nations-led Carbon project is at the top because it offers immediate financial alternatives to logging, even within the existing tenure system. High quality carbon projects are in demand, economically viable and can help transition to new practices like regenerative forestry.

What are the common steps required to attract and secure these funding streams?

Case studies of successful transitions by coastal First Nation communities have followed all or some of these steps outlined below:

  • Step 1. Reconciliation Agreements
  • Step 2. Atmospheric Benefit Agreements
  • Step 3. Land Stewardship Plans
  • Step 4. Governance Systems
  • Step 5. Stewardship Plan Implementation

See the Steps page for more information about each step.