TALKING TO THE MOB: DRAFT INDIGENOUS COMMUNICATIONS … · TALKING TO THE MOB: DRAFT INDIGENOUS...

TALKING TO THE MOB:

DRAFT INDIGENOUS COMMUNICATIONS AND

ENGAGEMENT PLAN FOR A FOREST

STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL (FSC) NATIONAL FOREST

MANAGEMENT STANDARD

Forest Stewardship Council – Communications and Engagement Plan – April 2013

Page | 2

Cover photo: Consulting with Indigenous people at an Agroforestry Workshop, Napranum, Cape York, September 2004.

Prepared by Environment Land Heritage and Sue Feary For Forest Stewardship Council Australia

April 2013


Page | 3

Table of Contents 1. Executive summary ................................................................................................................................ 5

2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 7

3. Scoping the project ................................................................................................................................ 9

3.1. Requirements of the Brief ................................................................................................................. 9

3.2. Overall purpose of consultation with Indigenous Australians .......................................................... 9

3.3. Understanding the Project ................................................................................................................ 9

3.4. Challenges of the project ................................................................................................................. 10

4. Background to the project ................................................................................................................... 12

4.1. Forest certification .......................................................................................................................... 12

4.2. History of FSC forest certification .................................................................................................... 12

4.3. Developing a FSC National Forestry Standard for Australia ............................................................ 12

5. Methodology for preparing a draft Communications Plan ................................................................. 14

5.1. Preamble.......................................................................................................................................... 14

5.2. Background reading ......................................................................................................................... 14

5.3. Database development ................................................................................................................... 14

5.4. Typology of interests ....................................................................................................................... 14

5.5. Staging the communications plan ................................................................................................... 14

5.6. Timetable and budget ..................................................................................................................... 14

5.7. Risks and constraints ....................................................................................................................... 14

5.8. Prepare a draft plan, including recommendations, and draft database ......................................... 14

5.9. Submit drafts for comment by FSCA [22nd March 2013] ............................................................... 15

5.10. Incorporate comments into drafts and submit final plan and database......................................... 15

6. Indigenous connections with forests and forest certification – the international context ................ 16

6.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 16

6.2. Emergence of FSC certification ........................................................................................................ 16

6.3. Indigenous involvement in FSC certification ................................................................................... 17

7. Indigenous connections with forests and forest certification – the Australian context ..................... 21

7.1. Traditional associations .................................................................................................................. 21

7.2. Historical Associations ..................................................................................................................... 21

7.3. Contemporary associations ............................................................................................................. 22

7.4. Contemporary Indigenous engagement with FSC forest certification ............................................ 27

8. Consulting with Indigenous Australians .............................................................................................. 28

9. Database development ....................................................................................................................... 29

10. A ‘typology’ of Indigenous interests .................................................................................................... 31

10.1. Preamble.......................................................................................................................................... 31

10.2. Understanding Indigenous interests ............................................................................................... 31

10.3. ‘Types’ of interest ............................................................................................................................ 33


Page | 4

11. Elements of a communications plan ................................................................................................... 36

12. Timing and indicative costings for implementing the communications plan ..................................... 41

13. Risks, constraints and limitations ........................................................................................................ 43

14. Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 44

15. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 46

16. Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix 1: Stakeholder Database ................................................................................................................ 50

Appendix 2: Tender document ........................................................................................................................ 51

Appendix 3: Terms used in FSC Principles and Criteria ................................................................................... 56

Appendix 4: Suggested topics for a future scoping paper .............................................................................. 57

Appendix 5: Protocols for effective community engagement (excerpt from Annandale and Feary (2008)) . 58

Figures Figure 1: Mount Tepalamenggutu (1700 metres asl) ...................................................................................... 19

Figure 2: The Indigenous estate and ILUAs (Altman, 2012, p. 229) ................................................................ 24

Figure 3: Extent of Aboriginal owned forests. ................................................................................................. 26

Figure 4 : A 'pyramid' of Indigenous interests in FSC certification .................................................................. 35

Figure 5: Recommended Meeting Locations ................................................................................................... 37

Figure 6: Elements of Communication Plan .................................................................................................... 40

Tables Table 1: Regions and potential meeting locations .......................................................................................... 38

Table 2: Indicative costings for implementation of communications plan ..................................................... 41

Table 3: Indicative timings for Stages .............................................................................................................. 42

file:///C:/Users/Emily/Dropbox/Forest%20Stewardship%20Council/FSC%20Draft%20Communications%20Plan%205Aprildraft.docx%23_Toc353525338


Page | 5

1. Executive summary Forest Stewardship Council Australia (FSCA) is developing a FSC National Forestry Standard for Australia, to

promote sustainable management of Australia’s native forests and plantations and Chain of Custody

certification for forest related products.

The process of developing a FSC National Forestry Standard requires extensive consultation with

stakeholders and the formation of several committees to prepare the draft Standard and take it through

various iterations.

FSCA intends to conduct a separate consultation process with Indigenous Australians, in recognition of the

unique status of Indigenous Australians as the original forest owners and managers holding ownership of

large forest areas in northern Australia, and also because modern approaches to consultation are not

always culturally appropriate. As well as participating in developing a national standard, FSCA would also

would like to have Indigenous Australians participate in the business of FSCA more broadly, including

Indigenous representation at the Board of Directors level.

Indigenous Australians have a long history of association with forest industries, from being employed in

forest harvesting and local sawmills from the early 20th century, to participating in the Forest and Timber

Enquiry and in development of State-based Regional Forests Agreements during the 1990s. However, their

association with forest certification is more limited and the effectiveness of FSCA in engaging with the

Indigenous community will be largely determined by how well FSCA is able to demonstrate the social and

economic benefits of forest certification, particularly at the local level.

FSCA called for tenders to develop a draft Indigenous communications plan and engagement strategy and a

database of Indigenous stakeholders. This initial stage is aimed at compiling sufficient information to seek

funding for finalising and implementing the communications plan, in the broader context of developing the

National Forestry Standard.

This draft report begins by presenting a vision for FSCA in respect of Indigenous input into a national

standard, followed by a description of the methodology used in preparing the plan. There is a section on

the nature and extent of Indigenous Australians’ engagement with the forest sector, including forest

certification. This section includes a review of selected auditors’ reports for currently certified forests in

respect of performance against Principle 3 of the FSC principles and Criteria. Methods and techniques for

culturally appropriate consultation with Indigenous Australians are also discussed.

The process of building the database and reviewing how Indigenous Australian currently engage directly

and indirectly with forest industries critically informed development of a typology of Indigenous interests

in FSC certification. The typology is something of an artificial construct but is a useful tool for categorising

different stakeholder groups and appreciating the breadth of potential interest.

Section 11 lays out the elements of a communications plan, at its centre being extensive face to face

consultation with peak bodies and regional/local community groups. Rather than have a single Indigenous

person chosen by FSCA to represent Indigenous stakeholders on the proposed Standards Development

group, this communication plan calls for formation of an Indigenous Advisory Group (IAG) to be drawn from

attendees at regional meetings. The IAG would meet to draw up relevant components of the national

standard and would feed into the Standards Development Group, through its own nominated

representative.


Page | 6

This reports points some limitations of the process, including the absence of an existing scoping or status

report for providing detailed information on Indigenous perceptions of and involvement with forest

certification in Australia and internationally which could have critically informed the communications plan.

The very short time frame for the project precluded such an in-depth study.

Two issues emerged during research for the communications plan which are worthy of further investigation

in development of the National Forestry Standard. One relates to Indigenous communities, particularly in

southern Australia whose tenure rights over forests are not recognised by the native title process.

Australia’s unique position in respect of Principle 3 needs further thought. The other is, with a few

exceptions, the interest Indigenous forest owners have in carbon abatement and forest stewardship for the

delivery of ecosystem services and how this might be recognised by FSCA certification processes.

When compared to heavily forested countries with Indigenous communities, such as in the Amazon or the

Pacific or to other settler societies such as NZ and Canada, Indigenous Australian’s engagement with the

forest sector is of a relatively minor nature. A realistic scenario for Indigenous forest owners in Australia

needs to recognise a fundamental difference between ‘remote’ and ‘settled’ Australia. Indigenous

communities own vast areas of forest in northern Australia, whereas holdings in southern Australia are

small and widely dispersed and their aspirations may be different. However, regardless of location,

Indigenous communities use forests for a wide variety of purposes of which commercial forestry may be

one. Certification has the capacity to enhance economic or social benefits arising from this scenario. In

relation to forests owned by other people, it is important to recognise that onerous requirements for

Indigenous consultation may be a deterrent to forest owners otherwise wanting to become certified.


Page | 7

2. Introduction

The Forest Stewardship Council Australia (FSCA) is embarking on a process to prepare a Forest

Management Standard for Australia and is seeking input from Australia’s Indigenous population in

development of the Standard and in the ongoing operations of FSC Australia.1

FSC Australia is the national office of the Forest Stewardship Council, an international not-for-profit

certification organisation dedicated to the promotion of responsible forest management worldwide. It has

an international forest standard with 10 principles and 56 criteria requiring forest management to be

environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable. Although several of the Principles

have relevance to indigenous peoples, e.g. 2, 4 and 5, Principle 3 is the main principle giving recognition to

the rights of indigenous people:2

The principles and criteria are fixed at a global level, and in order to assist forest managers, stakeholders

and certification bodies interpret them for a specific country or region, a set of International Generic

Indicators is currently being developed [for further information on this process see https://ic.fsc.org/).

Many countries are developing or have developed their own FSC national and regional standards. Australia

currently has FSC interim national standards developed by separate Accredited Certification Bodies,

awaiting development of the FSC Australian National Forestry Standard.

The proposed FSC Australian National Forestry Standard aims to represent the consensus view of all

relevant stakeholders and FSC Australia proposes to undertake a comprehensive community and industry

consultation process to capture these views.3 Consultation with indigenous peoples is a formal

requirement of the FSC standard setting process ( FSC STD 60-006), and is fundamental for ensuring

indigenous peoples rights and interests are adequately addressed in any FSC Australian National Forestry

Standard.

Australia’s Indigenous population is part of the Australian community at large, but FSCA acknowledges that

the broader consultation process may not be appropriate or effective for creating a dialogue between

Indigenous people and FSCA. Firstly, as the original owners and managers of Australia’s forests, Indigenous

people have a unique set of rights and interests in regard to forests that set them apart from non-

indigenous stakeholders. The Native Title Act (Commonwealth) 1993 is the primary agent for recognition of

these rights and interests, together with land rights legislation in most states and territories. Secondly, the

social and economic circumstances of many Indigenous people is such that some forms of communication

commonly used by mainstream society, especially those using modern technology, may not reach some

Indigenous communities.

1 Indigenous (capitalised) refers to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of Australia. Indigenous is not capitalised

when referring to the first peoples of a country in a global context. 2 This is V.5 of the P&C which has been accepted but was not in force at the time this report was being prepared.

3 Consensus is defined by FSC as general agreement in favour of a proposal, plus the absence of a sustained objection to the

proposal.

Principle 3: Indigenous peoples’ rights.

The Organization shall identify and uphold indigenous peoples’ legal and customary rights of ownership, use and management of land, territories and resources affected by management activities.

[The legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to own, use and manage their lands, territories and resources, shall be recognized and respected].

lands, territories, and resources shall be recognized and respected.

3.1

https://ic.fsc.org/


Page | 8

In the light of these two important factors, FSC Australia intends to establish a separate consultation

process with the Indigenous community4 to ensure that the relevant people and organisations are

identified and that all fora are culturally appropriate and conducive to the free exchange of information,

opinions and aspirations in regard to developing an FSC National Forestry Standard.

As well as seeking involvement from the broader Indigenous community in development of the Standard,

FSC Australia is also looking for Indigenous representation on a number of national committees, including

FSC Australia Standards Development Group (SDG), the Technical Group and a consultative forum, which

will take the standard through to its finalisation. Furthermore, the consultation process is intended assist in

establishing long-term relationships between FSC Australia and the Indigenous population, through FSCA

membership and representation on the FSC Australia Board of Directors.

Expressions of interest for developing the communications plan were sought via the FSC Australia website

and the communication networks of FSCA Directors. Mark Annandale of ELH and Sue Feary submitted a

joint proposal and were advised that it was successful on 26th February 2013. This communications plan

has been prepared in response to the tender document (see Appendix 2).

This report has two main components as required by the brief for the project - a database of potential

Indigenous stakeholders and a draft communications plan. The database appears as Appendices at the

back of the report and as a separate excel spread sheet which can be updated as required. The report

comprises a draft communications plan, to assist FSC Australia in seeking funding for further development

and implementation of the communications plan.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Natalie Reynolds for her assistance as the contact person for the project and Linda

Feinberg for her patience and support in responding to numerous questions and providing critical

information. Linda Feinberg, Warrick Jordan and Natalie Reynolds gave detailed comments on the draft

which have improved it immeasurably. We would also like to thank all the people who supplied us with

valuable information for the database.

Disclaimer

ELH and Sue Feary are not responsible for any omissions or errors that result from information that was not

available at the time this report was prepared.

4 ‘Community’ is this context refers to Indigenous community groups, individuals and organisations, who have an interest or a

potential interest in FSC forest certification.


Page | 9

3. Scoping the project

3.1. Requirements of the Brief

In order to achieve a goal of effective participation of Indigenous Australians in preparation and

implementation of a FSC national forest standard, the project brief identified two specific outcomes:

1. ‘Identification and Mapping of Indigenous Communities and Stakeholders’

2. ‘Advice for the Method of Engagement considering Timeframes and Deliverables in the National

Standards Plan.’

Accordingly, the Deliverables of the project brief are:

1. ‘Produce a brief report identifying all categories of Indigenous groups with an interest or connection

to Australian forests. The report should explain the methodology and resources used’, and

2. ‘Draft a Communications Strategy and Engagement Plan with sufficient information for FSCA to

base a detailed funding proposal and plan initial engagement around the National standard

process. ‘

Meeting the requirements of the brief requires an intellectual approach, which:

Critically evaluates and fully appreciates the overall intention of the proposed Indigenous

consultation process, how its performance can be measured and its limitations

Is underpinned by a sound knowledge of how Indigenous Australians currently engage with the

forest sector and their likely responses to the concept of certification and a FSC national forestry

standard and

Demonstrates an understanding of how Indigenous Australians will benefit, socially and

economically, from being involved in the consultation process and ultimately from the existence of

a FSC national forestry standard.

3.2. Overall Purpose of Consultation with Indigenous Australians

The following statement or ‘vision’ has been prepared to guide and focus development of the

communications plan:

3.3. Understanding the Project

A number of important factors will shape the development of a communications plan:

The nature and extent of Indigenous peoples’ current connections with the processes of forest

certification [see Section 7.4].

To enable Indigenous Australians to have the best opportunity, through an effective participation

process, to influence the content of an FSC National Forestry Standard; to ensure their rights and

interests are adequately addressed; and to empower Indigenous Australians to benefit from all aspects

of sustainably managed forests.

enhance social and economic opportunities arising from sustainably managed forests.


Page | 10

Unless Indigenous people perceive real long term and short term economic and social benefits

from engaging with FSC, e.g. access to land for customary activities, protection of cultural heritage,

employment opportunities at a local level (as well as more widely) they are unlikely to want to be

consulted.

Effective consultation with Indigenous Australians, particularly in respect of a national issue such as

forest certification, is generally a protracted and multi-faceted process, demanding of resources,

high levels of diplomacy and specific skills set, and usually needs a very long time frame.

In the light of the above factors, this project is best understood as a preliminary or initial stage of a

future major consultative program with Indigenous people. The database is an initial attempt to

capture those groups, at local, regional, state/territory and national scales, who may be interested

in engaging with the consultation process for development of the Standard. It will underpin but

will also be informed by subsequent stages of the consultation process.

Similarly, the communications plan is not comprehensive, but instead provides a framework and

recommendations for further development and implementation in subsequent stages of the

consultation process.

3.4. Challenges of the Project

Indigenous people generally prefer to engage with natural resource management, including forest

management, in a localised manner. Although some groups operate within a broader regional

framework such as through the Murray Lower Darling River Indigenous Nations, the Aboriginal

Rainforest Council, or powerful land councils, others operate in an independent manner. Obtaining

the locations and contact details of every one of these ‘grass roots’ stakeholders is a difficult and

time consuming task.

Active involvement of a particular group or community in local forest management is often

temporary, arising from funding through various short-term government programs aimed at

building social and economic capacity at the community level. In other situations, Indigenous

partnerships with the private sector, such as through Management Investment Schemes have

foundered due to circumstances beyond local control such as the GFC. These short-term situations

mean that a database of contacts has a limited life.

Privacy laws place limitations on transfer of personal information between parties. For example,

although DAFF is supportive of the intention to involve Indigenous people in developing an FSC

national forestry standard, it is not prepared to allow access to the extensive database and network

of contacts that have been built as a result of NIFS. Furthermore, some agencies such as

Catchment Management Authorities and Native Title Services, which are significant sources of

information due to their extensive network of contacts, are unable to give out information to

another party. However, these agencies may be prepared to act on behalf of FSCA by passing on

information.

According to the NIFS project officer, the state of global and national economies has affected the

degree to which Indigenous people are involved in private and public forestry, with a downturn in

many industries, forcing them to focus on core business, with less funding for ‘good corporate

citizen’ type projects i.e. the ones that involve Indigenous communities.


Page | 11

FSC intends to use the consultation process to identify national representatives to sit on various

committees. Representation of Indigenous people by a single individual is not in accordance with

customary forms of governance and can cause many problems, sometimes leading to withdrawal of

Indigenous support for a process. Identifying national representatives requires careful planning

and very effective engagement with indigenous communities.

A challenge for the communications plan is the need for cultural sensitivity and culturally

appropriate approaches. The plan will be developed with these in mind, drawing on the

considerable expertise and knowledge of the authors in regard to Indigenous culture and society

and their experience in Indigenous consultation. Due to the short timeframe for producing the

plan, it does not contain a detailed review of the extensive literature on Indigenous consultation;

instead it is assumed that implementation of the final communications will be done by people with

extensive skills and experience in the field of Indigenous consultation. Appendix 5 contains

guidelines for conducting culturally appropriate consultation.

Possibly the biggest challenge facing the development of the Standard from an Indigenous

perspective is being able to demonstrate how Indigenous people can benefit from forest and chain

of custody certification of their own forests or forest products, or from those belonging to the

crown or on private land. Development and dissemination of accurate and appropriately

presented information to the Indigenous community about FSC and its potential benefits is

therefore a very important element of the initial phases of the communications plan.


Page | 12

4. Background to the project

4.1. Forest Certification

Certification is the third party assessment of a product to show that it is in compliance with a specific

standard. In relation to forests, certification is a market based system which has been developed so

consumers can have confidence that they are buying from suppliers with sustainable forest management

practices.5 Forest certification is a voluntary process and currently about 10% of the world’s forest are

under at least one certification program. For a forest to be certified as sustainably managed, it needs to be

audited by an independent, third party certification body. The audit looks at the forest management

practices and measures these against the standard for certification. Both native forests and plantations can

be certified.

4.2. History of FSC Forest Certification

Development of forest certification processes has gone hand in hand with global concerns regarding

deforestation and forest degradation, particularly of tropical forests. Following the 1992 Earth Summit and

frustrated with inaction of intergovernmental efforts to address deforestation, ENGOs, especially WWF,

agitated for processes to define, measure and evaluate sustainable forest management (Wallis, et al.,

1997).

The FSC was established in 1993 as the vehicle for multiple stakeholders to advance certification. It

developed its own set of principles and criteria for forest management and accredits third party certifiers to

assess forest management and chain of custody (Kanowski, et al., 1999). It is the dominant certification

scheme globally with over 170 million hectares in more than 81 countries certified according to FSC Forest

Management standards and over 24,500 FSC Chain of Custody certified organisations (see http://ic.fsc.org).

The stakeholder origin of FSC is reflected in its constitution that requires three chambers – economic, social

and environmental - to have an equal say in important policy issues. In some countries, e.g. Canada and

New Zealand, there is a fourth chamber to represent respectively, the interests of First Nations and Maori.

FSC International‘s Principles and Criteria (Version 5), were endorsed in February 2012, to which all existing

national standards are required to conform. V.5 is used in this report although it had not come into effect

at the time of writing. To assist in global consistency FSC is currently developing a set of international

generic indicators (IGIs) and verifiers to support the principles and criteria and all countries with national

standards will need to realign to reflect the new IGIs.

4.3. Developing a FSC National Forestry Standard for Australia

Currently, FSC Australia does not have a national forestry standard and certification of Australian forests is

conducted under four interim standards established by accredited certification bodies. These are

Rainforest Alliance-Smartwood, Scientific Certification Systems, Soil Association - Woodmark interim

standard for Australia and Soil Association-Woodmark SLIMF Interim Standard for Australia. These interim

standards have provided the framework for some 892,000 ha of FSC certified Australian forest and tree

plantations. The standards are all slightly different, potentially causing uncertainty by end users in regard

to which is the ‘best’ standard.

5 There is an extensive literature on sustainable forest management but in general it refers to responsible forest management in

relation to the protection of the natural environment, economic viability, and awareness of the social consequences of forest-based decisions and activities – the triple bottom line.

http://ic.fsc.org/


Page | 13

FSC Australia is in the process of developing an Australian Forestry Standard specific to the environmental,

social and economic concerns of the Australian forestry industry. This forest management standard will

start with the FSC International Principles and Criteria and develop indicators and supporting verifiers that

address key issues in Australian Forestry.

Through a comprehensive planning and consultation process, FSCA hopes to develop a robust standard that

is able to address future Australian forestry issues with the confidence of established consensus from key

stakeholders and interest groups. The process will consist of multiple (at least three) stages of stakeholder

consultation on draft proposals, as well as field trials of the draft proposal.

In order to achieve transparent transition to an effective endorsed standard, FSC Australia will take

measures to ensure the consultation process engages with a broad range of stakeholder and interests

groups. An FSC Australia Standard Development Group (SDG) will be created; comprising up to nine

members (see http://www.fscaustralia.org/policies-and-standards/forest-management). There is also an

intention to establish a technical expert group and consultative forum, both with Indigenous

representation.

http://www.fscaustralia.org/policies-and-standards/forest-management


Page | 14

5. Methodology for preparing a draft Communications Plan

5.1. Preamble

As stated previously in Section 3, the overall purpose of any communications plan is to give stakeholders

the best opportunity to participate fully in developing an FSC Forestry Standard and to have an influence

on its content and meaning, to ensure their rights and interests are adequately addressed and to enhance

social and economic opportunities arising from sustainably managed forests.

The purpose of this draft communications plan, as outlined in the brief, is to provide sufficient information

for FSCA to develop a detailed funding proposal for Indigenous engagement around development of the

FSC National Forestry Standard process.

The steps below outline the approach taken in this project to meet the requirements of the brief.

5.2. Background Reading

Conduct background reading and literature reviews as required for building a context for the

communications plan and identifying potential stakeholders. The research focussed on reviewing

techniques of Indigenous consultation, an overview of Indigenous engagement with the forest sector, and

Indigenous people’s engagement with certification, including a review of performance of FSC certificate

holders in Australia in regard to relevant FSC Principles and Criteria [Sections 6, 7 and 8].

5.3. Database Development

Develop a database of Indigenous communities and organisations who are potentially interested in

participating in development of an FSC national standard and/or in the FSC more generally [Section 9 and

Appendices 1].

5.4. Typology of Interests

Based on knowledge of Indigenous connections with the forest sector, develop a ‘typology’ of potential

Indigenous interests in FSC certification and where feasible, assign interest/s to each stakeholder [Section

10].

5.5. Staging the Communications Plan

Identify the main stages of a communications plan [Section 11].

5.6. Timetable and Budget

Develop a timetable and indicative budget for implementation of the plan commensurate with timing for

completing the FSC National Forestry Standard [Section 12].

5.7. Risks and Constraints

Document limitations, knowledge gaps, and identify any major issues [Section 13.]

5.8. Prepare a Draft Plan, including Recommendations, and Draft Database

Design a report format and structure and prepare a draft plan and a draft database


Page | 15

5.9. Submit Drafts for Comment by FSCA [22nd March 2013].

5.10. Incorporate Comments into Drafts and Submit Final Plan and Database .


Page | 16

6. Indigenous connections with forests and forest certification – the international context

6.1. Introduction

A detailed review of the relationships between Indigenous people and FSC forest certification processes

across the globe is beyond the scope of this current project. However, as this background information is

vital for informing development of an FSC standard in Australia (including the consultative processes), this

section presents a brief global overview with some country specific examples. The subject was partly

addressed in a previous report for FSCA (Forest Stewardship Council Australia, 2010).

6.2. Emergence of FSC certification

About 350 million people who live within or close to dense forests depend on them for their subsistence

and income. Of those, about 60 million people (especially indigenous communities) are wholly dependent

on forests.6 Most are in developing countries, where escalating deforestation since the mid-20th century

has had devastating impacts on the social and economic wellbeing of forest dependent people, often some

of the poorest in the world (Sayer, 2005).

Globally there are strong links between forest management and Indigenous people:

Sustainable management of forests and poverty alleviation of indigenous and forest dependent

communities have gone hand in hand for many decades within the broader discourse of social justice.

Connections between environmental NGOs fighting to save forests , particularly WWF, and poor forest

dependent people fighting for their livelihoods were an initial step in recognising that certification

processes were a potential for ensuring sustainable management of forests.

The 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro under the auspices of United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED) was the stage for formal recognition of indigenous rights in

relation to forests. The 1000 indigenous representatives at the Rio meeting established an alternative

summit called Kari Oca where a declaration was developed on indigenous rights and development,

including rights in relation to forests. The principles of the declaration outlined the rights of indigenous

people to participate in decision-making, emphasised the unique relation between indigenous people and

the natural environment and alluded to the importance of retaining traditional knowledge. The 1996

Leticia Declaration came out of the UNCED and recognises the rights of indigenous and other forest

dependent people over their forest lands (Feary, 2007).

At a global scale, indigenous and forest dependent people have a compelling interest in the sustainability of

forest management and recognition of their interests has been one of the driving forces in the FSC scheme

(Kanowski, et al., 1999). The FSC system is widely seen as having the most stringent requirements towards

respecting the rights of indigenous peoples (Teitelbaum & Wyatt, 2013).

6 www.worldbank.org (accessed 5/4/2013)

Indigenous peoples are often closely associated with forests; forests provide habitat and are important

to them for economic, social and cultural reasons. Concerns about conserving and managing forests

often coincide with concerns about the survival and integrity of the cultures and knowledge of

Indigenous peoples (Ruis, 2001:8 in Feary 2007).

http://www.worldbank.org/


Page | 17

Principle 3 of the international standard (v5) and its five criteria require informed consent; protection of

heritage, recognition of resource and property rights, and allow for compensation for use of traditional

knowledge (see Figure xx). Components of other criteria are also relevant to indigenous people, as citizens

of a country, especially principles 2 and 4. Principle 6, in relation to ‘caring for country’ resonates with

Indigenous people in Australia.

6.3. Indigenous Involvement in FSC Certification

The degree to which indigenous people are involved in some or all of the various components of forest

certification varies greatly across the globe, and is dependent in part on whether their country has its own

FSC national forestry standard.

Over the last five years, FSC-IC has worked towards improving access of indigenous community landowners

to FSC certification. This has included development of group certification (more appropriate for forests

communally owned under customary land tenure), SLIMF (Small and Low Intensity Managed Forests)

certification, and tools to assist risk assessment and monitoring. FSC-IC have also worked on strengthening

rights and the capacity of indigenous peoples to have a say in FSC through development of guidelines for

implementing Free Prior and Informed Consent, regional indigenous and social chamber workshops and the

creation of a FSC Indigenous People’s Permanent Committee in 2012. There are also pilot projects

underway on marketing of small community product lines.

Principle 3: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

3.1 The Organization shall identify the indigenous peoples that exist within the Management Unit or are affected by management activities. The Organization shall then, through engagement with these indigenous peoples, identify their rights of tenure, their rights of access to and use of forest resources and ecosystem services, their customary rights and legal rights and obligations, that apply within the Management Unit. The Organization shall also identify areas where these rights are contested. 3.2 The Organization shall recognize and uphold the legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to maintain control over management activities within or related to the Management Unit to the extent necessary to protect their rights, resources and lands and territories. Delegation by indigenous peoples of control over management activities to third parties requires Free, Prior and Informed Consent. 3.3 In the event of delegation of control over management activities, a binding agreement between The Organization and the indigenous peoples shall be concluded through Free, Prior and Informed Consent. The agreement shall define its duration, provisions for renegotiation, renewal, termination, economic conditions and other terms and conditions. The agreement shall make provision for monitoring by indigenous peoples of The Organization’s compliance with its terms and conditions. 3.4 The Organization shall recognize and uphold the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples as defined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) and ILO Convention 169 (1989). 3.5 The Organization, through engagement with indigenous peoples, shall identify sites which are of special cultural, ecological, economic, religious or spiritual significance and for which these indigenous peoples hold legal or customary rights*. These sites shall be recognized by The Organization and their management, and/or protection shall be agreed through engagement with these indigenous peoples.

[see http://igi.fsc.org/a-short-history.33.htm; see Appendix 3 for an explanation of terms]

http://igi.fsc.org/a-short-history.33.htm


Page | 18

But many challenges still remain. Although deforestation of tropical forests was the initial prompt for FSC

certification, these forests remain the least certified (and least sustainably managed) across the globe. For

example, forest certification has advanced little in the Pacific. Identified constraints to certification include

political instability, lack of community skills in managing forests for commercial production, disputes over

forest tenure and resource allocation and weak and/or corrupt governments who can’t or won’t enforce

logging codes and condone illegal logging. Pacific countries have no national certification schemes and

foreign logging companies are generally not interested in becoming certified (McDermott, et al., 2006).

Most forest is under customary land tenure and forest owners and NGOs are working together to develop

viable, more culturally appropriate alternatives to reliance on large scale destructive logging which destroys

forests, marginalises customary resource owners (especially women), and often does not deliver on the

promised financial returns. NGO certification programs are designed to address illegal logging and

minimise community forestland being granted as concessions through unsustainable logging agreements

withlandowners. Certification of these small-scale, community or village based operations is seen as a tool

for addressing unsustainable and illegal logging. In PNG and Solomon islands, Ecoforestry certification has

been developed through collaboration between Greenpeace NZ and the International Tropical Timber

group, tailored for community owned and run forestry operations. This simplified and less costly

certification scheme is aimed at assisting communities to build capital and skills to proceed to full FSC

certification (McDermott, et al., 2006).

A 2006 assessment of forest certification in the Solomon Islands has shown that certification has had little

impact on the forestry industry in this country which has 68% forest cover. Reasons given are lack of

demand for certified timber by the market, close relations between the government and foreign owned

timber companies, negative consequences of adopting SFM, e.g. loss of jobs, and lack of government

support (Wairiu 2006). However, the situation is improving. Over the last fifteen years, a number of

landowners with assistance from NGOs have developed small-scale operations that directly involve all tribal

members, in an effort to attain maximum community benefit from forest exploitation (Wairiu, 2006).

Externally supported NGOs such as Greenpeace and WWF are working with land-owners in raising

awareness of SFM, small-scale forest enterprises and forest certification. In 1998 an eco-certification called

Solcert was set up and adapted FSC principles to local conditions to improve the chances of take-up by local

communities. However, response has been poor, due primarily to socio-cultural factors. One argument

against certification is its requirement for continuity of a labour force to meet the market demand. This

takes men away from their customary work in the gardens, leaving women to shoulder the additional

burden. The quantity and regularity of timer demand does also not fit well with needs of landowners who

may only need extra cash at certain times of the year (Feary, et al., 2012).

However, some social benefits were identified in the Solomon Island study, especially in the area of

community capacity and skill building. Some communities were able to halt commercial logging in their

forest areas through awareness training in certification standards. The earnings shared from sale of

certified timbers also reinforced traditional social networks of wealth redistribution by chiefs (Wairiu 2006).

The Solomon Islands has one FSC certificate holder. Kolombangara Forests Products Ltd is certified for

39,000 hectares of land located on Kolombangra Island, in the Western Province. It comprises 22,000 ha of

primary forest with the remainder in plantations. This area has high biodiversity and is a popular

destination for visitors, especially bushwalkers (Figure 1). There are current court cases to resolves

disputes between customary landowners regarding logging of the forest above the 400 metre contour -

some landowners want to log it for its timber values whereas others want it to be protected (see

http://www.kolombangara.org).

http://www.kolombangara.org/


Page | 19

Figure 1: Mount Tepalamenggutu (1700 metres asl) on the island of Kolombangra, Western Province, Solomon Islands, from Imbu Ramu lodge. Photo: S.Feary

In New Zealand, the Lake Taupo Forest achieved Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification in 2002.

The Lake Taupo Forest comprises around 22,000 hectares of Pinus radiata, administered by The Lake Taupo

Forest Trust (LTFT), a Maori authority established in 1968 to represent the interests of almost 10,000

owners of 65 separate Maori land titles located on the eastern shores of Lake Taupo, in the North Island.

The Lake Taupo Forest Trust aims are; ‘to protect the integrity and ownership of Nga Taonga tuku iho (core

asset of land and resources)’ administered by the Trust on behalf of the beneficial owners, and ‘to strive for

optimal and sustainable asset growth and financial returns through development of the Trust assets to

assist the long-term social, cultural and economic development of the beneficial owners.7 The forest has

no traditional associations for Maori (although the land it is on may have) and is managed under contract to

a forest management agency. In this case, the benefits of certification are indirect, relating to wealth

generation for Maori to pursue cultural activities (Feary, et al., 2012).

First Nations in Canada are very engaged with forest certification in their country, primarily through the FSC

regional standards. This country also has the largest area of certified forest in the world. Several recent

studies have explored the effects of forest certification on First Nation livelihoods. Tikina et al (2010)

conducted literature reviews to examine certification in two areas – forestry by Aboriginal people and

forest companies working in Aboriginal traditional territories. They found that forest certification

processes in traditional territories can bring benefits to Aboriginal people through improved

communication and greater awareness of Aboriginal concerns by forest managers. The benefits of

certifying an Aboriginal forest holding include the possibility of recognition of stewardship with spin-offs to

chain of custody certification (Tikina, et al., 2010).

There are thousands of forestry related Aboriginal business operations in Canada, but very few are

certified. Many of the operations are small-scale and the high cost was one reason for not adopting

standards, although the FSC’s small and low intensity managed forests program is addressing this to some

extent. There are also difficulties in creating synergies between Aboriginal worldviews and knowledge of

nature with certification paradigms. The study concluded with a series of questions which could prove to

7 http://www.ltft.co.nz/default.asp?cid=1.


Page | 20

be useful in an Australian context of an in-depth examination of the connections between Indigenous

people and certification (see Appendix 4 for a list of the questions).

Another, evaluation of forest certification in respect of First Nations rights in Canada focussed on FSC

certificate holders in respect of public boreal forests Quebec and Ontario and included case study analysis

(Teitelbaum & Wyatt, 2013). These are generally held by private companies who are also the forest

managers. The study recognised that First Nations are increasingly looking to certification for facilitating

meaningful dialogue with forest managers and owners but realise it is not a panacea. It concluded that FSC

certification is pushing forest managers in relation to Principle 3 of the P&C but that auditors are assessing

through a lens of ‘work in progress’ rather than strict conformance with the FSC standard (Teitelbaum &

Wyatt, 2013).


Page | 21

7. Indigenous connections with forests and forest certification – the Australian context

7.1. Traditional Associations

Indigenous Australians’ associations with forests and woodlands go back tens of thousands of years and

although contemporary images of ‘traditional Aborigines’ often portray them as desert dwellers,

archaeological research, historical records and museum collections demonstrate that the flora and fauna of

forests and woodlands featured strongly in diet and material culture of the pre-contact period. Those

familiar icons of Aboriginal culture; bark canoes, spears, boomerangs, didgeridoos, shields and the

distinctive funeral poles of the Tiwi Islanders, just to name a few, are all manufactured from the products of

the forest. Forest animals were food for all but desert dwellers and some, such as possums, provided skins

for warm cloaks. Understorey forest plants were reliable foods, usually collected by women; their tubers

were roasted, berries eaten raw and seeds ground into a paste. Plants also provided raw materials for

weaving baskets, pigment for art and were a source of many medicines (Feary, 2005).

Forests were part of the landscape created by the ancestral beings of the Dreamtime that connects the past

with the present and continues to give spiritual meaning to Indigenous people. For example,

Nyungar/Noongar people living in the forests of southwest Western Australia had dreaming stories for

specific forest products, such as the fungus dreaming and the Macrozamia (a cycad) dreaming. Individuals

linked to particular dreamings were responsible to protect their species and could not eat them. Rituals

ensured the well-being of the species and imparted a religious dimension to sustainable use of resources.

The main trees of the southwest forests, the karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor) and the jarrah (E. marginata)

were part of women’s dreamings (Crawford & Crawford, 2003).

Forest resources were plentiful and diverse, but the people needed intimate biological knowledge and

great skill to use them, because mistakes could be fatal. Many plants, such as the Macrozamias and

particularly rainforest plants, were toxic and needed to be leached in water before they could be processed

into flour. Men had to know the wood properties of a tree used for manufacturing a bark canoe to ensure

that it would not become waterlogged. Hunting possums demanded skill in tree climbing and knowledge of

the habits and ecology of the target species, and there are numerous other examples of what is now called

traditional ecological knowledge. This was at the core of the socio-cultural systems passed through the

generations by stories, songs and ceremonies (Feary 2005; 2007).

Many sacred places occur in forests – mountains shrouded in mist on the NSW south coast, and ceremonial

grounds, marked by earth rings are still visible on remote mountain tops in the Snowy Mountains. Physical

evidence of past life is also common, such as stone artefacts, art, stone arrangements, axe grinding grooves

and rockshelters. The tangible and intangible Aboriginal heritage found in forests is a link between past

and present and its recognition and protection is a critical element of social justice and cultural identify for

Indigenous Australians.

7.2. Historical Associations

As with Indigenous society generally, traditional forest use was profoundly affected by colonisation. First

settlers liked neither the ’interminable’ forests nor Indigenous Australians and in a way, histories of

exploitation of Australia’s forests went hand in hand with dispossession and marginalisation of her

Indigenous people (see for example (Reynolds, 1990; Attwood & Foster, 2003). Anthropologist Debbie


Page | 22

Rose’s observation that colonial history was a ‘dual war – a war against nature and a war against the

natives’ is an apt summation of the colonial situation (Rose, 2002).

After white contact, Indigenous people continued their association with forests in different ways. From the

time of the first timber getters, they have been involved in the ‘westernisation’ of forest management.

Indigenous people living on the missions on eastern Cape York harvested sandalwood (Santalum

lanceolatum) for its precious oil and fragrant timber, which was shipped off to Asia from 1865 (Keenan,

1996). Early sandalwood getters relied heavily on local Aboriginal knowledge to locate stands of

sandalwood (Wharton, 2005).

In the rich forests of northern NSW an early cedar getter reminisced on his early experiences with

Indigenous people:

….we nearly always had a blackfella with us, his keen eyesight being useful to pick out the bare

branches in winter, or the delicate reddish green foliage of the cedars in spring ( (Vader, 2002, p.

107)

Further south in NSW, in the Shoalhaven river valley , clashes with Aborigines on the Shoalhaven River were

so violent that a halt was called to cedar getting until peace was restored (Vader, 2002).

Although the written history is sparse, the oral history is rich about employment of Indigenous people in

sawmills and forests in the mid-20th century. Oral history researchers working for the Australian Heritage

Commission in the isolated rural area of East Gippsland in Victoria in 1993 noted that:

…references to itinerant work mention Aborigines cutting timber for firewood, fence posts and ring

barking for clearing land. The majority of present day Gippsland people know of family members

who have worked in timber mills. In the early days, Aboriginal families would camp in the bush

while the men worked at cutting wood in isolated areas (Goulding, 1993, p. 13).

Similarly in NSW numerous oral history references to employment in the industry add weight to a comment

by an Aboriginal elder from the south coast that, one of our biggest employers for work though was the

sawmills (Waters, 2004, p. 79).

So, it was not that surprising that during the forest protests of the late 1970s and 1980s on the NSW far

south coast , many local green groups assumed they would receive support from local Aboriginal

communities. Across Australia, logging had been shown to have a detrimental impact on Aboriginal

heritage (Bowdler, 1983;Cosgrove, 1982;Egloff, 1979) and this was thought to be a good reason for

Aboriginal people to join the protests. But, the Aboriginal community would not speak out publicly against

logging. The reason was that during the 1950s and 1960s on the south coast, forestry was a major employer

of Aboriginal people, in the sawmills and as fallers in the forests; they were ‘friends of the Kooris’, at a time

when racism and inequality denied many Aboriginal people employment in the mainstream economy

(Feary, 2008).

7.3. Contemporary associations

The Indigenous community is no stranger to modern concepts of sustainable forest management because,

in many ways it parallels ancient worldviews of land and resource management, often termed ‘caring for

country’. Additionally, they have been involved in forestry related consultation processes at a national

scale on no less than three separate occasions - the 1990 Forestry and Timber Enquiry (Cane, 1990), the


Page | 23

CRA/RFA process, and in 2004 they were consulted during development of a National Indigenous Forestry

strategy ( BDO Consulting (SA) Pty Ltd, 2004).

The messages coming from Indigenous people during all of these consultations are broadly similar and are

summarised below;

While no Indigenous communities are dependent entirely on forests, insofar as forests are the sole basis for

their livelihoods, they are extremely important for a range of reasons, including economic, environmental,

social and cultural. Forests and places within forests have spiritual values and/or are used for ceremonial

activity. Forests contain thousands of archaeological sites which are a direct and tangible link to a

traditional. Many communities still hunt and gather in forests to collect traditional foods and medicines.

Bark and timber are harvested to makes arts and crafts for the tourism market and Indigenous elders tell

dreaming stories to captivated audiences of ecotourists. If forests are part of a person’s country, it is most

important that he/he maintains connections through continued access which, among other advantages,

facilitates the passing of knowledge on to future generations.

State–based land rights legislation, native title claims and purchase of land by the Indigenous Land

Corporation (ILC) on behalf of Indigenous community groups and national park joint management

arrangements has seen the Indigenous estate grow to around 23%, rendering Indigenous people as major

stakeholders in regard to land use and management (Altman, 2012), and Figure xx. Much Indigenous

owned land is of high conservation value and there is a growing literature demonstrating the formal

contribution of the Indigenous owned estate to nature conservation (including conservation of forests) and

the ensuing mutual benefits for both nature and Indigenous people (Altman, et al., 2007); Moorcroft, in

press).

As can be seen from Figure 2, and the ILC map (not shown) the greatest areas of Indigenous owned land

occurs where there is little forest. As a result, only a small subgroup of Indigenous land owners are engaged

in native forest related activities or management. However, some Indigenous owned land contains

plantations or is capable of supporting plantations and there are several examples, such as at Nioka farm in

southwest Western Australia. This property was purchased by ILC for the Choorlij Aboriginal Corporation

who has a sharefarm arrangement with the Forest Products Commission to grow maritime pine (Feary,

2007).

First and foremost, Indigenous people see forests as part of land, once owned and managed entirely by

Indigenous people and stolen from them by the British. They want to participate in management of

forests, because on the whole they believe that they are better land managers than white people. Forests

also contain evidence of an ancient culture, providing a tangible link with the past. Indigenous people

want control over protection of their cultural heritage and want access to forests for hunting and

gathering and other activities critical to self-determination and cultural revival. The capacity to derive

economic benefit was seen as a right, preferably incorporating customary knowledge and traditions.

Economic development that allowed for cultural traditions to be respected and utilised was a strong

theme in subsequent consultations and will be the major challenge for Indigenous forest policy

development (Feary, 2007).


Page | 24

Figure 2: The Indigenous estate and ILUAs (Altman, 2012, p. 229). Note: may not include all the land purchased by Indigenous Land

Corporation on behalf of Indigenous communities. 8

Across the nation, approximately 14% of Australia’s forests and woodlands are in some form of collective

Indigenous ownership. Commercial timber harvesting is currently minimal and forests and woodlands are

being utilised in other ways. As Figure 3 shows, the largest area of Indigenous owned native forest is in

Arnhem Land, being open eucalypt woodland where an important fire abatement program is operating;

Fire agreement to strengthen communities Members of the Arnhem community, including Lofty Bardayal Nadjamerrek, with Environment Minister Marion Scrymgour and researchers Jeremy Russell Smith and Peter Cooke A landmark agreement between Indigenous land managers, government and the energy industry, is set to boost fire management in the Top End, reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as provide meaningful jobs for people on country and benefits to the communities involved. The West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement (WAFMA) project is a partnership between the Northern Territory Government, Darwin Liquefied Natural Gas, the Northern Land Council and Traditional Owners

See http://www.ilc.gov.au for an up to date map of all land purchased by ILC on behalf of Indigenous community groups. Copyright restrictions prevent it from being reproduced in this report.

http://www.ilc.gov.au/


Page | 25

from coastal Maningrida, to the headwaters of the Katherine and Mann rivers, as a strategy for offsetting greenhouse gas emissions from the Wickham Point Gas Plant. "This is an historic agreement-a first of its kind for the world-that brings together the world's oldest cultures with Western science," the NT's Environment Minister, Marion Scrymgour said. "It is also the first time that a major energy company has formed a partnership with Aboriginal Traditional Owners to foster a return to traditional fire management regimes leading to a subsequent reduction in greenhouse gases." As part of the arrangement, Darwin Liquefied Natural Gas will provide around $1 million every year for the next 17 years to Aboriginal Traditional Owners of western Arnhem Land to implement a fire burning strategy. Patchy burns will be implemented across the landscape to better protect the Arnhem Land Plateau from the wildfires that occur late in the year. The burns will break up the fuel available for destructive fires. Limiting wildfires will in turn reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from that landscape. Savanna fires are the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions for the Northern Territory. Based on estimates for 2004, burning of savannas contributes 41% of the NT's accountable emissions. Patchy grass fires, however, emit fewer greenhouse gases than wildfires which can kill trees. If a mosaic of patch burns limits the spread of wildfires, less of the landscape is burned and fewer greenhouse gases emitted. Reducing emissions in this way from the west Arnhem Plateau will offset greenhouse gas emissions from the Liquefied Natural Gas plant at Wickham Point. Research coordinated by the TS-CRC and involving CSIRO, Bushfires NT, the Australian Greenhouse Office, NT's Department of Natural Resources Environment and the Arts, and Western Australia's Department of Land Information underpinned the feasibility of the agreement. "The Tropical Savannas CRC will be contracted to monitor and report on greenhouse gas emissions during the agreement," said Dr Jeremy Russell-Smith, fire ecologist with the Bushfires NT and TS-CRC. A major outcome is that the agreement will provide meaningful jobs for people in the long term, with a host of benefits to the communities involved, said Jeremy. These include: providing role models and better career paths for Aboriginal children-a focus of the project. supporting transfer of Indigenous knowledge between generations as elders work with young people. helping people re-establish contact with traditional lands. building English skills and cross-cultural confidence essential to economic activities such as tourist enterprises. supporting partnerships between remote communities leading to improved social and economic coordination. Limiting wildfires will also help conserve environmental and cultural values of the Plateau. These include numerous rock art sites and around 77,000 ha of rainforest which are being damaged by repeated wildfires.9

During the mid-2000s, the Tiwi Aboriginal Land Council entered into a partnership with Great Southern

Plantations to establish plantations of the fast growing Acacia mangium for the overseas woodchip market.

A large port was built and training and employment of Tiwi islanders in forest operations was commenced.

The program had promise for monetary returns and local employment but establishment of plantations

controversially required clearing of extensive areas of native forests, something that not all Tiwi Islanders

were happy about, nor were some environmental groups. The plantation company folded during the

Global Financial Crisis and the trees are standing unpruned and unwanted and a forestry future is now

9 For more information see www.savanna.cdu.edu.au

http://www.savanna.cdu.edu.au/


Page | 26

uncertain. Could FSC certification have played a role in minimizing the amount of forest clearing, confining

plantations to already cleared areas and encouraged other forms of sustainable forest use?

Further south, there are many smaller parcels of land in the better watered edges of the continent which

still retain native forests. For example, the Batemans Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council owns about 1200

hectares of spotted gum forest and a team of LALC forestry workers have been trained in harvesting

techniques in readiness for a long term sustainable harvesting program, in partnership with NSW Forestry

Corporation.

Figure 3: Extent of Aboriginal owned forests. Red is forest on Indigenous held land or on Government held land for Indigenous use ( Source: National Forest Inventory, 2003)

There are numerous small, localised Indigenous run businesses across the country, involving collection of

forest products and turning them into arts and crafts for the lucrative tourism market. Because the

harvesting of forest products is driven primarily by economic imperatives, customary protocols controlling

access and resource use are sometimes ignored, leading to potential issues of unsustainability. In this

respect, use of the small tree Bombax in the Maningrida region of central Arnhem Land has been the

subject of a sustainability study (Koenig, et al., 2005).

Probably the greatest level of engagement in regard to forest industries in Australia is between local

Indigenous communities and state forestry agencies. State based heritage legislation, recognition of native

title rights and outcomes of regional forest agreements have facilitated good partnerships in many parts of

southern Australia. Pre-logging surveys conducted by local Indigenous communities in crown forests are a

major income and capacity building activity. For example, Forests Corporation NSW employs heritage

officers from the Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council to conduct pre-logging surveys on a compartment by

compartment basis (Feary, 2007). Numerous agreements have been drawn up in relation to employment,


Page | 27

access to hunt and gather and to hold cultural camps, and to participate in forest management planning.

While some agreements have occurred in the context of native title, others have not. For example, the

Anaiwan elders and Forest NSW have an agreement for traditional use of forests around Walcha on the

NSW mid north coast (Spencer, 2004).

In 2003 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) embarked on an ambitious project to

develop a National Indigenous Forestry Strategy (NIFS) aimed addressing Indigenous social and economic

disadvantage through greater engagement with forestry and forest industries ( BDO Consulting (SA) Pty Ltd,

2004;Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 2005). NIFS facilitated several short term

Indigenous employment projects e.g. cleaning up forests after cyclones in Queensland (Loxton, 2007). It

has some level of involvement in several forest based projects across the country, but appears to have had

minimal impact on alleviating social and economic disadvantage.

7.4. Contemporary Indigenous engagement with FSC forest certification

There are 29 companies currently listed as being FSC certified for Forest Management/CoC in Australia. A

brief review of some recent audit reports of these companies reveals that in general, Principle 3, and other

relevant Principles of the FSC international standard were addressed in quite a limited manner, by

conducting native title searches and searches of state cultural heritage databases, with little or no

communication with local Indigenous groups. In most cases Principle 3 was considered to be not

applicable, because of a perceived absence of Indigenous people with tenure rights. As a consequence, the

Accredited Certification Body often did not assess the application of Principle 3. Taking such a narrow view

of Indigenous tenure rights as equating only to native title rights is problematical. It excludes many

community groups with very strong traditional ties to land who, as a consequence of historical legacy, will

never achieve native title rights. Having native title extinguished and land planted to an exotic species does

not diminish the strength of Indigenous people’s attachment to the land and is an issue for consideration

when developing the FSC National Standard.

However, there are some certificate holders who are engaging effectively with local Indigenous groups,

including non-native title holders. There is at least one example in Australia where FSC certification has

directly benefitted a local Indigenous organisation. The now defunct plantation company, Integrated Tree

Cropping , employed a local Aboriginal group to manage some of its Tasmanian blue gum research

plantations in Esperance, Western Australia. Interviews conducted as part of PhD research demonstrated

that FSC certification was the driver for employing the community, who in turn, received employment,

developed skills and expertise and lifted their exposure in the regional labour market (Feary, 2007).

Currently there are no FSC certified Indigenous-owned forests, nor are there any Indigenous products

labelled as coming from certified forests. A paper by the then ATSIC Commissioner and NIFS Steering

Committee member, Rodney Dillon, was an impassioned plea for greater opportunities for Indigenous

Australians to participate more fully in forest certification (Dillon, 2000).

At a national level, an Indigenous person was an FSCA member and on the FSC Board for a short time and in

2008 FSCA engaged Indigenous consultants to provide advice on Indigenous engagement (FSC 2010).


Page | 28

8. Consulting with Indigenous Australians

Criterion 3.1., FSC principle 3, talks about the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.

While this establishes a sound and strong framework for engagement and consultation, it is important to

remember that in Australia, Indigenous people never gave free and informed consent for their land and

waters to be taken away and controlled by a new settler society. The injustices of these historical legacies

continue to resonate today such that most consultation with indigenous Australians is inexorably

intertwined with issues of social justice.

Because of the multiple agendas, consultation with Indigenous people can therefore be challenging for the

inexperienced. For many years Indigenous people complained (and still complain) that consultation,

especially by government departments was tokenistic and just seeking ratification for something that had

already been decided upon. It is now widely accepted that this level of consultation is not adequate.

There is an extensive literature on both community consultation generally and Aboriginal consultation in

particular. Most government departments and many industries have developed their own sets of rules for

engaging with indigenous people, tailored to their specific circumstances, e.g. mining industry, heritage

agencies, e.g. Murray-Darling Basin Authority (Aslin & Brown, 2004). In some cases, rules of consultation

are laid out in great detail and are enshrined in legislation e.g. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974,

Regulation 2010.

Consultation guidelines nearly always refer to the importance of culturally appropriate behaviours,

although they do not always specify what they actually are. Protocols for engaging with people of a

different culture are fundamentally about showing respect for that culture and acknowledging difference in

a way that is not disempowering. While there are numerous good reports on the topic, those specific to

forestry are a particularly valuable source of information. A report on agroforestry and Indigenous

consultation in north Queensland contains many useful hints for organising and running meetings and

contains a consultative framework appropriate for Queensland and elsewhere (Annandale & Feary, 2009).

Appendix 5 provides a detailed description of how to consult with Indigenous people, which can be used as

a guide for developing protocols specific to circumstances of the FSC communications plan.


Page | 29

9. Database development

In developing a communications plan, the first step is always to identify potential stakeholders, together

with their current and accurate contact details. This can be challenging in regard to some Indigenous

communities who may live in remote areas, with limited access to electronic forms of communication and

no postal services. Even the ubiquitous mobile phone cannot be relied upon in these circumstances.

The brief for the project has very broad criteria for the initial stages of database production, to ensure the

process is (and is seen to be) inclusive viz “identify all categories of Indigenous groups with an interest or

connection to forests” (FSC brief, p.3). However, a database generated on the basis of this criterion would

be very large, take a very long time to build and would not be that useful. With the exception of Indigenous

people living in desert/semi- desert or savannah grassland areas, all Indigenous people, and the

organisations to which they affiliate, would meet this criterion. The quote on page 21 of this plan

demonstrates the nature and extent of these connections and interests.

Similarly, criterion 1.b) #4, on p.3 “Indigenous communities who have social, economic, health and

environmental interests affected by the management of forests and plantations” is also very broad and is

potentially relevant to all communities other than desert and savannah dwellers.

While recognising the desire for an inclusive process, creation of a database is only one of the tools for

achieving this. Furthermore any database will inevitably, albeit unintentionally, exclude some people, who

may then feel disenfranchised. This communications plan recommends widespread advertising in the

Indigenous media as an effective complementary process for further capture of potential stakeholders (see

Section 11).

In the light of the recommended complementary process of advertising for capturing the broadest

audience the modified aim of the database is to be more focussed and list all Indigenous groups likely to

have an interest in FSC certification and the operations of FSCA. This is identified as being a subset of

Indigenous groups known, or thought by the consultants, to be involved with some aspect of forest

management and forest industries on their or someone else’s land. Currently, Indigenous groups

associated with forest management and forest industries do so in relation to their own land or in relation to

private or crown land over which they have customary rights. Thus development of the database involves

identifying Indigenous groups who own native forests or plantations, and Indigenous groups who are

associated with crown or private forests as a result of legal recognition of customary rights. Examples of

the former include native title groups, land councils or registered corporations for whom the ILC has

purchased land. Examples of the latter are local Indigenous groups whose customary land/country has

been recognised through state legislation or regional forest agreement processes.

Indigenous people employed in forest industries across all tenures are also potential stakeholders although

many do not identify as Indigenous in these situations. In the past, CDEP facilitated employment of local

Indigenous communities in sawmills but this program was stopped by the last coalition government.

The final potential stakeholder cohort is Indigenous businesses who buy, sell and/or manufacture forest

products for the tourist market. It includes Indigenous groups who harvest forest products from their own

or other people’s land.

Database development relied heavily on the existing communications networks of the consultants who

have worked with Indigenous communities across Australia in the heritage and forest sectors for many

decades.


Page | 30

The database was extended by exhaustive web-based searches of Indigenous peak organisations,

Indigenous business directories and government agencies with responsibilities for Indigenous heritage such

as Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. Personal knowledge of the consultants helped in identifying small local

Indigenous groups. While not all the groups will be interested in certification, their presence on the

database is a starting point for establishing smaller and more targeted consultation processes in regard to

the FSC Standard and FSCA involvement more generally.

Personal contacts of the consultants in state and commonwealth government agencies and in the private

sector provided valuable information on Indigenous involvement in various aspects of the forest sector.

On 8th March 2013 we met with Sid Eades, project officer with DAFF responsible for implementation of

NIFS.

Email contact was made with selected FSC certificate holders to ascertain which indigenous groups were

being consulted.

Research institutions, known or likely to conducting Indigenous and forest-related research were

contacted.

Key definers in the database are:

Name

Contact details

Contact person

Location – state/territory

Scale – national/state/local

Level – peak body/regional/local

TALKING TO THE MOB: DRAFT INDIGENOUS COMMUNICATIONS … · TALKING TO THE MOB: DRAFT INDIGENOUS...

Documents

Transcript of TALKING TO THE MOB: DRAFT INDIGENOUS COMMUNICATIONS … · TALKING TO THE MOB: DRAFT INDIGENOUS...