ARTICLE

What does “First Nation deep roots in the forests” mean?Identification of principles and objectives for promotingforest-based developmentJean-Michel Beaudoin, Luc Bouthillier, Janette Bulkan, Harry Nelson, Ronald Trosper,and Stephen Wyatt

Abstract: We often hear about the resistance of First Nation (FN) communities to the industrial model of forestry, but we hearless about what they wish to achieve. Translating FN perspectives into concepts that are understood by the mainstream societycan help inform current and future forest policies. Such translation can support initiatives that seek ways to increase FNparticipation in the forest sector. This paper documents one process of translation. It identifies the principles and objectives forforest-based development of the Essipit Innu First Nation in Quebec, Canada, reflective of the deep roots that anchor the Essipitto their territory. Based on participatory research carried out between January and July 2013, we identify 34 objectives foldedinto three core FN principles: Nutshimiu–Aitun (identity–territoriality), Mishkutunam (sharing–exchange), and Pakassitishun(responsibility–autonomy). Our analysis shows that the economic aims of the dominant forestry model are too narrow for FNcommunities. This paper contributes to expanding FN engagement in forestry through management and economic approachesthat are better adapted to their culture and values.

Key words: First Nation, forestry, culture, sustainable development, Quebec.

Résumé : On entend souvent parler de l'opposition des communautés autochtones envers le modèle industriel de foresterie,mais pas beaucoup de ce qu'elles souhaitent accomplir. La transposition des perspectives autochtones dans des concepts plusfacilement compréhensibles des non autochtones peut contribuer a améliorer les politiques forestières actuelles et futures. Cetravail de transposition entend également soutenir les initiatives visant a stimuler la participation des Autochtones au secteurforestier. Cet article documente un tel processus de transposition. Il identifie les principes et les objectifs qui guident le projetde développement forestier d'Essipit, une communauté autochtone innue du Québec (Canada). Il révèle le lien profond entre lesmembres de cette communauté et leur territoire. À partir d'une recherche-action menée entre janvier et juillet 2013, nousidentifions 34 objectifs qui se rattachent a trois principes fondamentaux : le Nutshimiu–Aitun (identité–territorialité), leMishkutunam (partage–échange) et le Pakassitishun (responsabilité–autonomie). Notre analyse montre que les objectifséconomiques de la foresterie conventionnelle sont trop étroits dans un contexte autochtone. Elle apporte une contribution al'engagement croissant des communautés autochtones en foresterie en suggérant des modèles économiques et des approches degestion mieux adaptés a leur culture et a leurs valeurs. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : Autochtone (Première Nation), foresterie, culture, développement durable, Québec.

1. Introduction“Deep roots in the forests” is a message conveyed by many

stories in the Aboriginal world, yet understanding what this mes-sage means remains a major challenge for Canadian forestry. Onthe one hand, First Nations (FNs) have used and stewarded forestsfor centuries, accumulating valuable knowledge along the way(Trosper et al. 2012). Today, with 80% of FN communities located inforested areas (Gysbers and Lee 2003), standing forests continue toplay a central role in the environment, economy, life, and cultureof FN communities (Booth and Muir 2013; Tindall et al. 2013;Beaudoin 2014; Smith 2015). On the other hand, forest exploita-tion on a commercial scale has long been promoted as an instru-ment for economic development in FN communities (RoyalCommission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) 1996; Government ofQuebec 2011). Recent reports show that the forest sector plays an

increasing role in FN economies across Canada, with FNs holding6.4% of Canada's total wood allocation volumes, involving over1400 FN businesses and 16 000 FN workers (National AboriginalForestry Association (NAFA) 2007; Beaudoin et al. 2009; ForestProducts Association of Canada (FPAC) 2014; Government ofCanada 2015). Yet the forest sector creates the potential for con-flicts, as explained by Berkes and Davidson-Hunt (2006), whereindustrial-scale logging practices impact forest ecosystems (e.g.,loss of biodiversity and old forests) and, consequently, FN culturallinks to the forests. Thus, there are ongoing discussions in FNcommunities over the trade-offs between the necessity to createjobs versus the responsibility to protect the forests and FN culture(Booth and Skelton 2011; Smith 2015). The dichotomy between thevisions of “intact forest landscape” and “forest industry” promptsthe following questions. Are these two visions really incompati-ble, or are the constraints imposed by the industrial development

Received 30 April 2015. Accepted 20 December 2015.

J.-M. Beaudoin and L. Bouthillier. Faculty of Forestry, Laval University, Pavillon Abitibi-Price, 2405 rue de la Terrasse, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.J. Bulkan and H. Nelson. Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Forest Sciences Centre, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.R. Trosper. American Indian Studies, University of Arizona, Harvill, 1103 E. 2nd Street, P.O. Box 210076, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.S. Wyatt. School of Forestry, University of Moncton, 165 boulevard Hébert, Edmundston, NB E3V 2S8, Canada.Corresponding author: Jean-Michel Beaudoin (email: jean-michel.beaudoin@sbf.ulaval.ca).

508

Can. J. For. Res. 46: 508–519 (2016) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0170 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cjfr on 5 January 2016.

Can

. J. F

or. R

es. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y L

akeh

ead

Uni

vers

ity o

n 04

/04/

18Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

models limiting the kind of objectives that FN communities canpromote?

The Canadian forest sector is built around a dominant model ofindustrial forestry that emphasizes the economic values of Canada'sforests (Beckley 1998; Howlett and Rayner 2001; Chiasson and Leclerc2013), while ecological values are treated as constraints and ad-dressed through regulations and the creation of protected areas inwhich harvesting is excluded. In this model, governments assumethat forest companies with long-term timber rights will generatejobs, revenues, and other social benefits in forest communities(Nadeau et al. 2003). This provides a rationale for government toactively seek to increase FN-held concessions or licenses to tacklepoverty in FN communities (Nikolakis and Nelson 2015). For ex-ample, the last federal strategy, A Vision for Canada's Forests: 2008and Beyond, states “Aboriginals and their businesses have a role toplay in the forest economy. They are involved in the developmentof sustainable forest management practices, notably through theapplication of their knowledge and practices” (Canadian Councilof Forest Ministers 2006, p. 12).

Research indicates, however, that such policies have failed tomeet the expectations of FN peoples (Parkins et al. 2006; Wyattet al. 2015). One well-known challenge is that “governance ap-proaches and tools to engage First Nations in natural resourcedevelopment are too few and limited in scope. Often, they castFirst Nations in the narrow role of respondent; that is, of respond-ing to already defined projects as part of regulatory reviews orfixed processes for consultation and accommodation” (WorkingGroup on Natural Resource Development (WGNRD) 2015, p. 14).We know that FN communities expect more than economic ben-efits from forestry initiatives, and extensive US research on indig-enous governance has demonstrated the importance of linkingeconomic development to good governance in ways that are con-sistent with values and objectives (Jorgensen 2007). However,there is much work to be done to achieve sustainable forest man-agement1 in First Nation communities or in their territories (Wyatt2008; Booth and Muir 2013).

There are a number of sources that provide interesting insightsinto how FN values can be incorporated into existing forest man-agement systems (Wyatt 2008). In particular, FN criteria and indi-cators (C&I) have been promoted as a tool to incorporate FN rightsand values in the sustainable management of forests (NAFA 1995;Kopra and Sevenson 2008). Several examples exist wherein thevalues of FN community members were identified and translatedin the form of principles, criteria, and indicators (Natcher andHickey 2002; Karjala et al. 2004; Sherry et al 2005; Shearer et al2009; Saint-Arnaud and Papatie 2012). These sets of C&I, generallyderived from national frameworks, build a baseline on whichtrends in the sustainability of forest resources can be measuredand monitored to go beyond sustained yield forestry and addressthe needs of Aboriginal communities (Smith et al. 2010). Previousresearch highlights that community members' participation inthe development of FN C&I is important to create a local frame-work that is effective at incorporating Aboriginal peoples in thediscussion about forestry (Hickey and Nelson 2005), as well as totake into consideration social heterogeneity within communities.

Yet adapting forest management activities to reflect forest valuesand conditions that respect and integrate Aboriginal rights, needs,and perspectives remains challenging (Adam and Kneeshaw2008). Before focusing on forest management activities, commu-nities prefer considering a broader land use planning exercise,which foresters are reluctant to do (Smith et al. 2010). In the end,Aboriginal C&I based on the experience and world view2 of FNpeoples provide valuable information on forest conditions andthe sustainability of forest practices. However, they do not pro-vide a systematic way to assess the trade-offs involved in the eco-nomic development of forest resources or are they necessarilyintegrated into larger strategic objectives that the FN may haveand their decision-making processes in which this developmentmay be evaluated.

The rationale behind current dominant forestry models promptsforest companies to create partnerships with FN communities tosecure continued access to timber concession licenses (Hickey andNelson 2005). However, Boyd and Trosper (2010) show that jointventure partnerships do not really give FN communities controlover forest management decisions and fail to address the preser-vation of traditional culture, values, and language. As mentionedpreviously, a major issue is that FN communities have been work-ing mainly within the constraints of the dominant forestry model(Wyatt 2008), with little flexibility to define a model of their own.This occurs because the management of Canada's forest is domi-nated by the decision-making of experts from the state3 and pri-vate forest companies (Beckley 1998; Bouthillier 2001; Chiassonand Leclerc 2013), and tenures and licenses have long been de-signed to meet the needs of forestry companies rather than theneeds of FN or local communities (Ross and Smith 2002). How,then, can governments and forest companies rationalize andshare the benefits of forest-based development with FN commu-nities? How can they better address the needs of FN communities?

Traditionally, economic development has been defined as theprocess whereby per capita income increases over a long period oftime (Barbier 1987). Porter (2000, p. 19) specifies that economicdevelopment is “determined by the productivity of a nation'seconomy, which is measured by the value of the goods and ser-vices (products) produced per unit of the nation's human, capital,and physical resources.” Trosper (1988) indicates, however, thateconomic growth may not be the primary goal of FN communitiesand that it is important to also consider non-economic goals. Morespecifically, Trosper (1995, 2009) and Trosper et al (2012)) proposesix principles of FN approaches to economic development thatcould also apply to forest-based development:

1. Identity: distinct cultures of FN peoples are to be protectedand enhanced;

2. Connectedness: everything is connected, including the peo-ples and their territory;

3. Reciprocity: FN systems of sharing benefits among themselvesneed to be maintained;

4. Sustainability: maintaining the sustainability of the system;5. Accountability: FN leaders must be responsible for their ac-

tions, especially in relation to land, reciprocity, and sustain-ability;

1Forest management is “the process of planning and implementing practices for the stewardship and use of forests and other wooded land to meet specificenvironmental, economic, social, and cultural objectives” (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2014). Thus, it focuses onoperational aspects for maintaining forest ecosystems and their functions. In comparison, forest governance is “a modus operandi by which officials andinstitutions (formal or not) acquire and use authority in the management of the [forest] sector to support and improve the well-being and quality of life ofstakeholders depending on it” (Chiasson and Leclerc 2013, p. 65). Thus, it focuses on how decisions are made about forests and on the interests ofstakeholders.2Aboriginal world views are ecocentric (Parsons and Prest 2003), i.e., humans are part of the natural world and maintain strong connections with the land.Aboriginal world views also convey principles of respectful interactions and relationships with surrounding forests and the world around them.3In this paper, “state” refers to both federal and provincial levels of government. In Canada, provinces hold administrative jurisdiction over Crown forestsand the federal government holds jurisdiction over national parks and Indian reserves.

Beaudoin et al. 509

Published by NRC Research Press

Can

. J. F

or. R

es. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y L

akeh

ead

Uni

vers

ity o

n 04

/04/

18Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

6. Limits on market economy: FN economic development puts alimit on the logic of market capitalism, notably by not man-aging forests only for the purposes of wood production andprofit accumulation.

While we can find references to these characteristics acrossseveral disciplines, including anthropology, political science, andsociology (Hornborg 1994; Holm et al. 2003; Rodon 2003; Simard2003), no research has spelled out the implication for how thesefindings might inform FN forest-based development initiatives inCanada. Although we were not testing Trosper's principles in ourexercise, they provided useful insights for understanding the Es-sipit case study.

Research shows that in contrast to goals around maximizingeither economic activity or aggregate wealth, some FN economiesemphasize elements of egalitarianism, sharing, and communalactivity (Dana 2015). Furthermore, Anderson (1997) shows that FNgoals for engaging more actively in economic development activ-ities encompass more than job and revenue creation; they are alsoseeking greater control over their lands, wealth for socioeco-nomic improvements in their communities, and protection fortheir cultures, values, and languages. In forest sciences more spe-cifically, Nikolakis and Nelson (2015) conclude that “FNs are workingto establish a ‘different way’ of doing business, but that existingtenure arrangements constrained management for multiple val-ues. Interviewees identified a model of forestry integrating mul-tiple values and enhancing a stewardship ethic over theirterritories.” Thus, the question is no longer “to log or not to log”but how to log with respect for FN deep roots in the forests.

The culture of forestry in Canada is changing (Stevenson andNatcher 2009), with FN communities diversifying their approachesto economic development (Beaudoin 2012). Henceforth, the term“forest-based development” is used in this article to allow foralternative models, rather than simply a timber extraction one, asthere probably is no one FN model. This article draws on theresults of a research project that identified the linkages betweenFN values, needs, and objectives for forest-based development andthat paid careful attention to the ways in which socioeconomicbenefits were recognized beyond the traditionally more narroweconomic focus employed in dominant forestry models. In thisarticle, we first contextualize the research topic and explain themethodology. Then, we present our results, discuss them, and offerour conclusions.

2. MethodsThe research project employed a participatory approach to ad-

vance knowledge on FN objectives4 for forest-based development.Participatory research provides local communities with a signifi-cant role in the research process, grounds research in local per-spectives and needs, and distributes research benefits directly tothe community (Fortmann 2008; Wilmsen et al. 2008). Wulfhorstet al. (2008, p. 33) clearly state “Community input can help toguard against experts making incorrect assumptions about thevalues, concerns and goals of a community whom they study, aswell as allow their own bias(es) to influence research findings.”Accordingly, we carried out this research in partnership with theInnu First Nation of Essipit in Quebec, Canada. Between fall 2009and fall 2011, we worked with a team of local collaborators toidentify the research objectives and methodology, as well as topursue funding opportunities. The project received formal ap-

proval of the Essipit Band Council and the UBC Behavioural Re-search Ethics Board.

We organized a strategic planning exercise with the Innu FirstNation of Essipit, hereafter referred to as “Essipit.” Figure 1 showsthe localization of Essipit on the Haute-Côte-Nord region of Que-bec (Canada), as well as its traditional territory, the Nitassinan(8403 km2).

Essipit was chosen for this research for two main reasons. First,the community showed a keen interest in participating in thestrategic planning exercise as a way to envision development of itsInnu Assi.5 Second, Essipit is characterized by a community devel-opment model that has been described as a social and economicsuccess (St-Georges 2009; Proulx and Gauthier 2012). In particular,Essipit has invested considerable resources for the acquisition andmanagement of six outfitters since 1983. Essipit outfitters arebusinesses that have exclusive rights to manage hunting, fishing,and trapping activities on a defined territory (385 km2), includingthe provision of accommodation, guides, and services. Thus, un-derstanding the Essipit model of forest-based development willcontribute to existing literature, while also supporting the comm-unity's own development efforts.

Essipit participants in all phases of the research were 18 yearsold or older and had knowledge, experience, or interest regardingcommunity or forest-based development, which is consistentwith Creswell's (1998) definition of key informants. The researchproject built upon earlier work by Gitane St-Georges (St-Georges2009; Beaudoin et al. 2012) on Essipit's preoccupations, values, andaspirations regarding its Nitassinan. Local collaborators for thecurrent study sought out individuals who had participated in theearlier study. The aim was to further develop the reflection al-ready undertaken but to refocus it on objectives regarding forest-based development of Essipit's Innu Assi.

Focusing on Essipit's Innu Assi allowed us to move beyond theprevailing model of forestry and develop principles and objectivesbased on the culture and values of Essipit people. We did notemploy the framework of previously reported work on C&I. Bydoing so, we wanted to focus on FN world views, rather than onthe sustainability debate, and how they viewed forestry from thebroader, more strategic perspective that informed their choicesover whether and how to develop their forest resources.

It is important to mention that Essipit, along with two otherInnu First Nation communities, are negotiating a comprehensiveland claim settlement with the Quebec and the federal govern-ments. Thus, the Essipit Band Council could become the sole man-ager (i.e., final decision-maker) over forest-based activities inEssipit Innu Assi. A strategic planning exercise would provide aguide for the rest of the Nitassinan where Essipit must negotiatewith other forest stakeholders. In total, we met with 28 key infor-mants (14 women and 14 men), 19 of whom had participated in theresearch of St-Georges (2009). We stopped adding participantswhen we reached a point of data saturation; in other words, whenwe stopped hearing new information. The number of informantsrepresents 14% of the 204 Band members living on reserve.

Data collection relied on focus group meetings (Krueger etCasey 2000), which occurred between January and July 2013 dur-ing which the first author lived in the community of Essipit. Theseven discussion groups consisted of male elders, female elders,outfitter guardians, land users, women, forest entrepreneurs, andartisans (see Table 1). Groups varied in size from three to eightpersons.

4We use the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) definition of “objective”: “The basic purpose laid down by the Organization for the forest enterprise,including the decision of policy and the choice of means for attaining the purpose” (Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 2015, p. 79).5Within the process of treaty negotiations, the Innu Assi is a territorial assignment of full property (communal private land) for Essipit. The Innu Assi isexpected to become the base for Essipit's governmental autonomy and an essential part of its socioeconomic development. The Innu Assi includes four ofthe six outfitters held by Essipit.

510 Can. J. For. Res. Vol. 46, 2016

Published by NRC Research Press

Can

. J. F

or. R

es. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y L

akeh

ead

Uni

vers

ity o

n 04

/04/

18Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

We used a written guide to aid standardization of the focusgroups. We started by briefly explaining the context of the InnuAssi, with a map of the territory as a visual support. Before thediscussions, we also explained to participants the meaning of theterm “objective” and we further clarified that an objective shouldbe specific, measurable (i.e., indicators), realistic, and time-framed(e.g., 10 years). We made a short presentation on existing Essipit

community capacity in forest-based development as a way ofensuring that all participants were equally aware of the issues.We asked semi-structured questions to better understand thefollowing issues: (i) their visions and objectives regardingforest-based development, (ii) the expected benefits, and (iii) the in-dicators for evaluating success of future actions that Essipitmight take.

Fig. 1. Location of Essipit Reserve and Nitassinan in Quebec (Source: Essipit Band Council 2013).

Table 1. Description of focus groups.

Number

Group DescriptionCitationcode Male Female

Male elders Men over 55 years ME 4 0Female elders Women over 55 years FE 0 5Outfitter guardians Members working for Essipit outfitters OG 4 1Land users Members occupying the territory significantly,

especially for the practice of traditional activitiesLU 4 0

Women Women between 18 and 54 years W 0 5Essipit forest entrepreneurs Members who are forest entrepreneurs or aspiring

entrepreneursEFE 2 1

Artisans Members working as artisans A 0 2

Number of participants by gender 14 14Total number of participants 28

Beaudoin et al. 511

Published by NRC Research Press

Can

. J. F

or. R

es. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y L

akeh

ead

Uni

vers

ity o

n 04

/04/

18Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Focus groups were conducted in French, as Essipit communitymembers do not use Innu aimun (i.e., Innu language) on a dailybasis. All discussions were recorded. Our local partners played anactive role during data collection: two of them as interviewers andone as an interviewee. In particular, the Band Council's profes-sional forester played an important role as a cultural mediatorduring the focus groups with elders. Additionally, our local part-ners helped to introduce Innu aimun in this research. This wasimportant to them as a sign of acknowledgment and support ofEssipit's efforts to revive Innu aimun. Moreover, the Essipit com-munity wants to build a forest model that shifts away from thedominant model of industrial forestry and opens space for Aborig-inal world views. Using Innu aimun in the research process of-fered a way to assert the intentions underpinning this new model.Indeed, research participants did appreciate not being forced intowestern thinking, and in truth, they did appreciate how the re-sults were framed into categories of their own.

Although certain themes were established in advance, we alsoadopted an open-coding approach based on grounded theory(Strauss and Corbin 1994) to allow the identification of newthemes that better reflected the views of participants (Creswell1998). We used NVivo 10 software (QSR International Inc.) to ana-lyze the content of the focus group transcripts. Qualitative dataanalysis first involved open coding to identify objectives and indi-cators for forest-based development. Then, we grouped the objec-tives and indicators that emerged into themes, or what Babbie(2010) refers to as axial coding. Next, we organized these group-ings into core principles,6 including key goals and values, in a waythat grounded the research in local perspectives. To achieve this,preliminary data analyses were shared and discussed with ourlocal collaborators on a regular basis. Finally, Essipit communitymembers validated the findings during a conference–dinner inNovember 2013.

3. ResultsData analysis identified 34 objectives for forest-based devel-

opment of Essipit's Innu Assi. Each objective is associated withat least one indicator to evaluate the success of future actions.These objectives and indicators were grouped into themes. Fi-nally, these themes were folded into three Innu principles (whichcover six principles as expressed in English): Nutshimiu–Aitunor identity–territoriality (Table 2), Mishkutunam or sharing–exchange (Table 3), Pakassitishum or responsibility–autonomy(Table 4). A synthesis of these three principles, as well as keyobjectives of the research project are presented in the follow-ing section. Additional details, including indicators, are pre-sented in Tables 2–4.

3.1. Nutshimiu–Aitun (identity–territoriality)Nutshimiu–Aitun means the reinforcement and development

of Essipit people' culture and of the link between them and theland. The principle encapsulates two English-language principles,namely identity and territoriality, which were closely linked inthe participants' views, because Essipit community members livetheir culture within the territory. Research discussions covered thefollowing themes: forest-related knowledge, cultural transmis-sion and awareness, land infrastructure, and land uses. For thisprinciple, results identified 11 objectives for forest-based develop-ment (see Table 2).

As the principle “Nutshimiu–Aitun” suggests, the partici-pants expressed a sense of a distinct identity and the desire to

maintain this unique character, as illustrated by the followingparticipant:

Innu culture is one thing, but the culture of Essipit people isanother. There are things in common and things that are ourown. This is what creates our values. I think we also need totransmit it to others; it's not just because you don't speak[the Innu language] that you are not Innu. (W2)

This participant explained that even if Essipit people do not speaktheir traditional language anymore, they still embody and expressa sense of a distinct culture. In particular, the success of the Essipitcommunal system and outfitters was singled out in the discus-sions as strong identity markers.

While the Essipit Band Council gives its outfitters priority in thearea under license in accordance with its goal of economic devel-opment,7 focus group participants discussed various possibilities

6We use the FSC definition of “principle”: “An essential rule or element of forest stewardship” (Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 2015, p. 81).7Hunting and fishing activities are mainly accessible to the outfitter's clients.

Table 2. Essipit Nutshimiu–Aitun (identity–territoriality) objectivesfor forest-based development: goal 1, maintain a vibrant and strongculture on the land; and goal 2, facilitate access to the land.

Nutshimiu–Aitun (identity–territoriality)

Knowledge about the forestDocument knowledge about forest

Number of ongoing research projects

Practices and cultural transmissionAllow Innu Aitun practices

Establish an accessibility system for hunting, fishing, and trappingMaintain cultural trips

Number of organized tripsFishing trip for primary school childrenHunting and trapping trip for secondary school youthFishing trip with elders

Organize a day of intergenerational exchangeNumber of organized activities

Organized community activity (e.g. community hunting)Protect traditional and community sites

Number of sites protected by a buffer zone (including Lac Bernier,Lac Mont Grain, and Lac Loup)

AwarenessOrganize a day of intercultural exchange

Number of organized daysRaise awareness towards respect of the land and of other users

Code of practice for the landNumber of land wardens

Sites and infrastructure on landOffer Essipit people access to some community sites

Availability periodNumber of available sites

Rustic siteDeveloped site

Offer Essipit people quality infrastructure in the forestNumber of campsMeeting roomKilometres of managed trails

Maintain quality access to landProportion of roads in good conditionPercentage of intersections with traffic signs

Land useIncrease land use by implementing policy and program

Number of implemented policies and programsA policy about land useA land use assistance program

512 Can. J. For. Res. Vol. 46, 2016

Published by NRC Research Press

Can

. J. F

or. R

es. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y L

akeh

ead

Uni

vers

ity o

n 04

/04/

18Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

to allow Innu Aitun practices8 on an individual basis in the sameareas, e.g., providing free and unconditional access to the InnuAssi, reserving part of the Innu Assi (e.g., an outfitter's territory)for use by Band members, and privatizing some specific sectors(e.g., cottages around lakes). At the same time, participants ex-pressed their desire to maintain the economic benefits from out-fitters (e.g., jobs and revenues). Thus, these discussions raisedthree major concerns with individual Innu Aitun practices: eco-nomic loss, potential nuisance for outfitters' clients, and difficultyin managing forest resources. In sum, participants found diffi-culty in harmonizing the commercial activities of Essipit outfit-ters and Innu Aitun practices on an individual basis. Notably,participants said that it is unlikely that members will leave theircurrent sites to go on the Innu Assi as most already have access toprivate cottages or trap lines outside this territory. Still, shareduse of the land outside the Innu Assi with non-FN peoples contin-ues to pose its own challenges and that context makes the projectof Innu Assi (i.e., territory under sole Essipit authority) attractiveto participants.

Participants mentioned, however, that it would be possible forthe commercial activities of the outfitters to coexist with InnuAitun practices on a collective basis. As the following excerptshows, establishing a community site and quality infrastructurein the forest would promote culture and knowledge transmission,as well as facilitate access to the land for members, in particular,for those who do not presently have access:

This place of gathering would be for community events, butcould also serve for knowledge transmission […] it would begood for those who want to be introduced among otherthings to trapping, even too for evenings of myths and oldstories from the community. I would like it! After that, itcould allow everyone to go in the forest. Not everyone has acottage or the income to go to an outfitter. (W1)

Additionally, participants wanted to maintain cultural fishing tripsthat already exist for primary school children and elders, as wellas hunting and trapping trips for secondary school youth. However,these yearly five-day trips are not sufficient for cultural transmis-sion, notably because they do not reach community membersaged between 18 and 54 years. Therefore, participants suggestedorganizing a day of intergenerational exchange. Older membersof the community hold traditional knowledge relating to the for-est. This knowledge is not well understood by younger membersand is under threat of disappearing with the aging population.Thus, another objective is to document this knowledge to pre-serve it and transmit it to young people and future generations.Furthermore, many participants reminded us of the ongoing prej-udices toward FNs and suggested organizing an intercultural ex-change day to raise awareness and teach outsiders about theculture and the achievements of the Essipit community, notablyregarding resource management practices by the outfitters.

The notion of respect was present in every discussion group:respect for wildlife, rivers, forest, land, and other users. The fol-lowing excerpt provides an example:

Respect starts with yourself. If you don't respect fauna […],you don't respect yourself. (ME1)

The group of land users provided another example of the impor-tance of respect by explaining that “driving around with a moosehead on the hood of one's car demonstrates a lack of respect forthe animal and is prohibited”. Thus, one of the objectives aims toraise awareness about respect for the land and other users, eitherby hiring land wardens or implementing a code of practice for

traditional activities. According to participants, an Essipit code ofpractice would notably include acceptable methods of practice, aswell as monitoring and surveillance measures.

The establishment of a land use policy would address all issuesand objectives discussed above in a coordinated manner. Such apolicy, internal to the organization of the Band Council, wouldformalize a planning and management framework for the occu-pation of the land. More specifically, it would establish rules forusing the Innu Assi, establishing FN camps, authorizing and man-aging land rights, and supporting Innu Aitun practices.

In sum, forest-based development of the Innu Assi has to pro-mote a place of knowledge, meetings, exchanges, and teaching.Participants expressed hope for a vibrant culture through a stronglink with the land, as a woman noted:

We need to look at our education. We know very well thatthe culture, the people, the transmission is rooted in theland, it is alive. It is within the territory that we learn. This isthe best education we can give. (W3)

3.2. Mishkutunam (sharing–exchange)Mishkutunam involves sharing and exchange of benefits from

forest-based development of the Innu Assi among Essipit peopleand with the outside world. The following themes were discussedwithin focus groups: knowledge, workers, business environment,and levers of development. For this principle, 12 objectives forforest-based development were identified (see Table 3).

Participants mentioned that forestry can have negative impactson traditional practices and outfitter activities in the short termbut also recognized that some impacts are temporary and thatharvesting can generate economic benefits. As such, participantssuggested the creation of an investment fund to reinvest revenuesfrom forest-based development in the Innu Assi and its peoples.

The revenues from our outfitters are reinvested in our out-fitters. They are not reinvested elsewhere or whatever. Theyare used for job creation, improving our roads, improvingthe quality of the services we offer to the people who come tohunt and fish in our outfitters. (LU1)

Such a fund could help serve a variety of purposes. For example,the Essipit Band Council might use the money to get throughdifficult times, improve infrastructure (e.g., roads), acquire addi-tional skills, diversify the local economy or improve quality of lifefor community members. However, some participants remindedthat “reinvesting profits” first requires “making profits”, a realchallenge one said, as “the forest sector is dead.”

For many participants, revenue diversification is an importantobjective to build economic resilience, but also to access the fi-nancial resources needed to develop Essipit Innu Assi. To achievethis, many potential business opportunities were discussed: pro-fessional forest management services (e.g., planning, photointer-pretation, and monitoring), blueberry farms, and communitysites rentals to outsiders during vacant periods. Additionally, out-fitters are a source of pride and an important lever for economicand cultural development in the minds of all participants, as thefollowing excerpts show.

Basically, it would be to get people to know us through theoutfitters. (W1)

At Lac Loup, we have a camp. It's offering the possibility to golive there. There needs to be guides […] to make our cultureknown to others. (W3)

Yes! To stop prejudices. (W2)

8Innu Aitun designates “all activities, in their traditional or modern manifestation, relating to the national culture, fundamental values and traditionallifestyle of the Innus associated with the occupation and use of Nitassinan and to the special bond they have with the land. These include in particular allpractices, customs and traditions, including hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering activities for subsistence, ritual or social purposes” (Government ofQuebec 2004, p. 4).

Beaudoin et al. 513

Published by NRC Research Press

Can

. J. F

or. R

es. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y L

akeh

ead

Uni

vers

ity o

n 04

/04/

18Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Thus, many participants suggested the acquisition of more outfit-ters or diversifying the range of activities offered in outfitters (e.g.,snowmobile trails, outdoor activities, or cultural tourism). Of course,market surveys are a prerequisite so as to determine the clients'needs before making strategic and responsible investments. Par-ticipants also discussed the idea of expanding Essipit constructionactivities, i.e., building infrastructures and cottages for existingoutfitters. This is an important socioeconomic activity, because itallows for the extension of seasonal work in the outfitters.

Informants said that a business partnership is an essential ap-proach for forest-based development of the Innu Assi, because itcan fill some gaps in expertise (e.g., where local expertise may belacking), provide important financial support, and avoid the com-petition that comes with a new business. Moreover, forest-baseddevelopment of the Innu Assi has to promote local businesses tomaximize benefits to the community or the region. Furthermore,

it is important to offer interesting conditions to forest companies.One of the objectives aims to ensure a sufficient amount of work,through guaranteed wood supply or contracts, for instance, toraise the interest of companies or to rationalize investments. TheEssipit Forest Entrepreneurs group indicated that another objec-tive has to aim for social acceptability of forest operations:

I'm under the impression that those who don't agree, it'sbecause they don't know. (EFE2)

To correct misperceptions about forestry, Essipit members andoutfitter clients need to be educated and made aware of the vari-ous types of logging and the forest replacement that occurs after-ward. Participatory management can also contribute to socialacceptability of forest operations.

Finally, the predominance of seasonal jobs in Essipit was ofgreat concern to many participants. This is especially so becauseof the changes made by the federal government to the Employ-ment Insurance (EI) system.9 Participants explained that “fre-quent claimants” of employment insurance must accept a jobwith lower working conditions than if they were “long-tenuredworkers.” Indeed, the new system sets stricter conditions forreceiving EI. At Essipit, economic activity is structured aroundseasonal jobs in the fishery, tourism, and forestry sectors. Employ-ment insurance provides important financial support during theoff-season. The jobs offered by Essipit will be harder to fill becauseone perverse outcome of recent changes in EI was to make itharder for workers to obtain employment insurance. Essipitworkers are more likely to belong to the category of “frequentclaimants” and consequently forced to accept undesirable jobsduring the off-season. Thus, insecurity would result both for theworkers themselves, who could decide to find a year-round jobelsewhere, and for the organization of the Band Council businessthat might lose its workforce. Consequently, participants identi-fied the objective of maintaining and improving jobs. To achievethis, the following possibilities were discussed: (1) extend outfit-ters' season with new tourism offers; (2) offer complementary jobsduring low season (e.g., construction); (3) offer “year-round”10

jobs, notably forest management related jobs. Another concernfor some participants was the imminent retirement of some ex-perienced workers. Thus, one of the objectives was to establish asuccession plan that would identify labour needs by sector ofactivity; another was to implement training to ensure transfer ofexpertise.

3.3. Pakassitishun (autonomy–responsibility)This principle implies the reinforcement of Essipit's capacity to

take charge of managing its Innu Assi while assuming the respon-sibilities that come with it. Thus, this Innu principle covers twoEnglish-language principles, namely autonomy11 and responsibil-ity. Research discussions covered the following themes: expertise,practices, forest environment, and management of forest access.For this principle, 11 objectives for forest-based development wereidentified (see Table 4).

The following excerpt illustrates a general consensus amongthe participants that the dominant forestry model cannot be im-plemented on the Innu Assi of Essipit because of scale and impactson the environment, wildlife, and culture.

Basically, the problem with timber cutting that is done, it's that[forest companies] always have the economic aspect in theirheads, thinking about what will be left in their pockets. The

9The federal government provides explanations on recent changes to Employment Insurance at http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/sc/ei/ccaj/vignettes.shtml (31 July 2015) (Government of Canada 2015).10Note that the term “year-round” does not necessarily mean, in this context, jobs over a period of 12 months, as some Essipit people need a few monthsto practice traditional activities such as hunting and trapping.11We define “autonomy” following Prudham and Coleman (2011, p. 5): “ autonomy […] refers to the situations of individual persons or communities and totheir capacity to shape the conditions under which they live”.

Table 3. Essipit Mishkutunam (sharing–exchange) objectives for forest-based development: goal 3, offer benefits to Essipit people; and goal 4,offer a promising environment to companies and partnerships.

Mishkutunam (sharing–exchange)

KnowledgeKnow customer needs to maintain supply of quality services

Follow up with customers

Levers of developmentPromote sustainable forest-based development by reinvesting in the

Innu AssiEstablish and maintain an investment and savings fundPercentage (by sector of activities) of revenues reinvested in the land

Diversify sources of revenue for more economic stabilityPercentage of revenue or contracts by sector of activities

Maintain benefits at the local level by promoting local businessesPercentage of contracts given to local businesses

Acquire new outfittersNumber of outfitters bought

Diversify the activities offered in the outfitters by developingrecreation and tourism sectors

Kilometres of managed trailsRent community sites to people or organizations outside the

community during non-occupied periodsNumber of days rented or occupied

WorkersMaintain and improve on-land jobs

Extension of the duration of seasonal jobsMaintain or increase number of yearly jobsMaintain or increase salaries and workers benefits

Ensure transfer of expertiseNumber of days of training linked to targeted expertise

Ensure sufficient recruitmentRecruitment plan: identify recruitment objectives by sector of

activities

Business environmentOffer stability to forest companies

Wood supply or contracts guaranteed for a certain period (e.g. 5 years)Promote social acceptability of forest operations within the population

Number of information tools (brochures, interpretive signs)Train outfitter staff to educate customersActivities offered at the outfitters to increase awareness

514 Can. J. For. Res. Vol. 46, 2016

Published by NRC Research Press

Can

. J. F

or. R

es. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y L

akeh

ead

Uni

vers

ity o

n 04

/04/

18Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

day the Band Council says we are cutting on our outfitters. Itis ours, we want to keep having great wildlife, we want topromote development of all these things. Let's forget theeconomic and let's do it for the health of the forest, of wild-life in general. Your people will still be working. It's obviousyou won't be making a million a month, but you'll still coveryour costs and your people will be working and your moosesurvives for a time. (OG6)

This quotation captures the tension that profit-oriented forestcompanies often fail to reconcile between the social and culturalbenefits of forest preservation and Aboriginal community devel-opment, where their focus is solely on the economic benefits. Inthe Essipit case, acquiring exclusive commercial rights to managewildlife is perceived as the right path to find the balance betweenthe need for jobs and forest protection. Accordingly, several par-ticipants made it clear that control over land management is afundamental objective for forest-based development of the InnuAssi. Even if the commercial wildlife business does not offer asmany economic benefits as forestry, they value the increase inautonomy that it offers and the opportunity that it can create forEssipit FN to establish its own rules and to develop its own prac-tices, thereby ensuring greater respect for their rights and values.

According to the female and male elders and the outfittersgroups, the first step towards gaining greater control over landmanagement is to make an inventory of current resources on theterritory to improve the general state of knowledge. The next stepis to determine land potentials and set quotas for harvesting wild-life and vegetation, including timber. Participants mentionedthat these are crucial steps to avoid overexploitation of resources,ensure sustainability and economic benefits, and protect andvalue their distinct culture. Various management strategies thatcould make this objective possible were discussed to meet objec-tives that are broader than only timber production: optimizingcertain elements within the calculation of the annual allowablecut (e.g., wildlife habitat models versus harvested volume); devel-oping a silvicultural system for deciduous and mixed speciesstands; and identifying operational guidelines for forest opera-tions, outfitter activities, and Innu Aitun practices (e.g., partialcutting and calendar of operations). According to the Essipit For-est Entrepreneurs group, Essipit has to be actively involved inland management, because only with a better understanding ofoperational requirements and costs will Essipit be in a betterposition to obtain a fair return on its investments or to predict theeffects of different management scenarios. As the next quoteshows, taking over management of the Innu Assi cannot happenwithout developing the capacity of community members:

At a certain point, if the community wants to manage manyhectares and develop it, it takes a vision, it takes data, ittakes people. (EFE1)

Thus, one of the objectives aims to evaluate human resourceneeds and to prioritize these needs. A complementary objectiveaims to establish a training plan to meet these needs. For exam-ple, internships would train people and help youth in makingcareer choices. In addition to building more autonomy, partici-pants are expecting that the development of local expertise cancontribute to the following aims: (i) bring local jobs, (ii) developcommunity pride, (iii) facilitate communication and consultationbetween the Council and its members, (iv) increase communityparticipation in management decisions; and (v) increase trust indecision-making.

The next objective, forest protection, could have been associ-ated with the principle Nutshimiu–Aitun. Indeed, it is intertwinedwith the Nutshimiu–Aitun principle, because protecting the ter-ritory is essential to maintaining a strong culture in Essipit. An-other way of explaining this objective is by showing the sense ofresponsibility apparent in the participants' discourse.

Protecting the environment, it is imperative. If we don't pro-tect it, it is not our neighbours who will do it in our place […]Because the Indians have always protected the environment.They have always protected things. They went fishing, theydid not take all the trout. They left some for the next year […]They lived from that and they knew how to protect them.(FE4)

Similarly, this participant said that forestry on the Innu Assi hasto respect the environment:

Forestry, it really has to respect the environment, if youwant to continue with the other things […] Yes it createsjobs, but I wouldn't go as far as destroying the environment.There's a lot of things to respect. (OG4)

In relation to forest protection, participants formulated an objec-tive of managing land access adequately. From their experience,forest roads open the territory, which then leads to overexploita-tion of fisheries and wildlife resources through hunting, fishing,and other recreation activities.

They build roads, but it's later that we are invaded […] I amnot against forest harvesting, but under the condition thatafter the harvest, you deactivate the road or you put naturalbarriers so that people can't go. You try to preserve the land

Table 4. Essipit Pakassitishun (responsibility–autonomy) objectivesof forest-based development: goal 5, strengthen Essipit's capacity; andgoal 6, maintain forest quality.

Pakassitishun (responsibility–autonomy)

ExpertiseImprove knowledge of the land's potential

Complete a forest inventoryNumber of research projects

Know land use of Essipit peopleComplete an Innu Aitum follow-up

Know the skill needsTraining plan (needs by sector and priorities)

Develop local expertise for managing the Innu AssiCustomized training programsNumber of days of training per person per year

Develop partnerships allowing transfer of expertise and capacitybuilding

Number of jointly realized projects

Access managementManage land access adequately

Number of “illegal occupants”Number of closed roads

PracticesDevelop a forest management model better adapted to enhancing

Essipit's wildlife resource management and cultureExistence of an allowable annual cutExistence of a management plan

Silviculture guide for deciduous and mixed standsPromote participation in forest management choices

Implementation of a consultation process (panel) with communitymembers

Present various management scenarios to membersInnu Aitum follow-up

Forest environmentProtect the forest and its biodiversity

Number of protected sitesNumbers of protected speciesCreate and manage the Akumunan biodiversity reserve (moose and

old-growth forests)Maintain sound quality of occupied areas

Existence of an operations and cultural activities calendarProtect landscape visual quality

Undetermined indicator

Beaudoin et al. 515

Published by NRC Research Press

Can

. J. F

or. R

es. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y L

akeh

ead

Uni

vers

ity o

n 04

/04/

18Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

a little […] We see what land use does, in relation to forestharvesting [in this region], but go to Lac-St-Jean region, thereare cottages, it's just like cities! The cities also bring overex-ploitation of the lakes over the summer, overexploitation ofwildlife […] The invasion is too big. (LU1)

Protection of forests in a broader sense involves maintaining thequality of the forest environment: biodiversity, peace (avoid noisepollution of machinery), and landscapes.

4. Discussion“First Nation deep roots in the forests” indicates that recogni-

tion and respect for Aboriginal cultures need to become an inte-gral part of professional forestry in Canada. “Deep roots” evokes astrong sense of connection to forest resources and forestlands,which is a consistent theme throughout the paper. FN communi-ties are seeking sustainable ways to develop forests as a means ofmeeting their cultural, social, spiritual, and economic needs. Thevisions of “intact forest landscapes” and of a “forest industry” arenot necessarily antithetical; it is rather the choice of practices thatcreates issues and problems. Evidence from across North Americaindicated that FN development initiatives should be designed in away that matches the local values of FN communities (Jorgensen2007). This research translated the values of the Essipit Innu FNinto 34 observable objectives for forest-based development. Theseobjectives were gathered into three core principles defining, upfront, cultural referents that should be considered in forest plan-ning, namely Nutshimiu–Aitun (identity–territoriality), Mishku-tunam (sharing–exchange), Pakassitishun (responsibility–autonomy).Now, we show how some of the key results presented in this paperrelate to previous studies, as well as their relevance and impor-tance for FN communities, forest businesses, and governments.

Participants often cited benefits such as jobs and revenues, yetthe wide variety of objectives identified in Tables 2–4 shows that itis impossible to reduce FN forest-based development to purelyeconomic benefits. Indeed, social and cultural benefits were seenas equally important. Across all focus groups, the most commontopic discussed was the maintenance of a strong cultural link tothe forests (see Nutshimiu–Aitun objectives in Table 3). With thefocus group labelled “Essipit forest entrepreneurs,” we expectedthat the discussion would mainly revolve around business oppor-tunities and entrepreneurship conditions. Instead, we had alengthy discussion on cultural objectives such as facilitating landaccess as a means to improve knowledge and cultural transmis-sion. Evidence from across North America highlights that nurtur-ing a strong cultural link is fundamental to FN cultures. Forinstance, the Atikamekw peoples in Quebec (Wyatt 2004), theNuu-chah-nulth peoples in British Columbia (Clayoquot SoundScientific Panel (CSSP) 1995), and the Menominee peoples in theUS (Trosper 2007) although involved in forestry still emphasizecultural contribution in assessing the impacts of forest practices.We have shown that this is also the case with the Essipit people.However, most of the challenges that FN communities face arerelated to integrating their cultures, values, and language intoforestry (Hickey and Nelson 2005; Boyd and Trosper 2010; Boothand Skelton 2011). Trosper et al. (2012) explain that even when thelanguage is in danger, other means allow FN peoples to identifythemselves as having a distinct culture. In our project, partici-pants found strong identity markers in the success of the Essipitcommunity as outfitters. We make the same observation for themembers' involvement system used for setting up business proj-ects. This highlights the importance of a bottom-up approach toidentify the distinct characteristics of the community in question.

For Essipit, as elsewhere among FNs in Canada, the land repre-sents an ancestral legacy that community members must preservefor future generations. Several research participants indicatedthat forestry practices can negatively affect the forest environ-ment and, therefore, their cultural link to the forests. For this very

reason, participants want to impose certain guidelines at the on-set of an industrial forestry project. Our data show that timberharvesting is acceptable to the community as long as logging andrestoration practices are harmonized with the ongoing economicactivities of the Essipit community as outfitters and the InnuAitun mode of land occupancy. For example, large-scale industrialpractices would be incompatible with the objectives of Essipit andbe more likely to create conflicts. As one of the participants men-tioned:

If there are no benefits for Essipit, there will be no loggingand the forest will stay intact. (LU2)

This quote exemplifies the perception that mainstream forestryhardly delivers benefits to FN communities (Wyatt et al. 2015).Tables 2–4 highlight several elements for developing benefit-sharing systems with FN communities, e.g., investing in the cul-ture, in forest access, or in maintaining visual landscape quality.

Our data further indicate that the Essipit community activelyseeks out new forest management tools to enable the initiators offuture projects to achieve sustainable forest development. Similarto the Menominee, (Trosper 2007), the Saulteau, and the WestMoberly peoples (Booth and Muir 2013), Essipit people want toestablish a culturally adapted allowable annual cut calculation,silviculture techniques, and management plans, as well as pro-tected forest areas to strengthen the local culture. For example,informants desire a code of practice that would be used to regu-late informal subsistence activities such as fishing. They also wantto promote participation of community members in a local advi-sory panel that would diversify forest management options. Thesefindings highlight the adaptive nature embedded in the Essipit'sobjectives for forestry that involves a requirement for developingskills, strategies, and processes (as shown in Table 4) that wouldevolve with forestry implementation. Thus, our data concur withBooth and Muir's observation (2013, p. 164):

The future essence of Aboriginal forestry in Canada likelyrests within and appreciates an “in progress”, adaptable ap-proach of balancing the values.

This research excluded the topic of land ownership by keepingthe discussions within the scenario of an Innu Assi (i.e., communalprivately owned lands). Yet our results illustrate that autonomyand control are crucial for Essipit, as for other FN communities, tomaintain a strong cultural link with the territory. The same pat-tern prevails when it is time to decide how the benefits of forest-based development can be shared equitably.

Our data also corroborate the findings of Nikolakis and Nelson(2015) that a complex set of objectives is required to fully meet theexpectations of FN communities. These authors identify four long-term and strategic forestry goals (i.e., community governance,environmental stability, jurisdiction–treaty rights, and employ-ment and economy). As mentioned in the Introduction, Anderson(1997) identifies three FN goals that are in line with Nikolakis andNelson's: greater control over their lands, wealth for socioeco-nomic improvements in their communities, and protection oftheir cultures, values, and languages. However, the current liter-ature is still at an emergent stage with respect to analyses showinga FN guidance system for forest-based development at the com-munity level. With our 34 observable objectives grouped intothree principles, we enable a progression in the analysis of FNapproaches to forest-based development. Our results highlightthe importance of community-level research, where communitymembers engage in a collaborative approach to define a forestdevelopment that is culturally meaningful to them. Three chap-ters in the book edited by Stevenson and Natcher (Saint-Arnaudet al. 2009; Shearer et al. 2009; Webb et al. 2009) also reportsimilar results and provide three other examples of communityand researcher collaboration.

Our results, as shown in Tables 2–4, further revealed severalaspects that also emerged in previously reported work on C&I

516 Can. J. For. Res. Vol. 46, 2016

Published by NRC Research Press

Can

. J. F

or. R

es. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y L

akeh

ead

Uni

vers

ity o

n 04

/04/

18Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

developed by or with First Nations (Shearer et al. 2009; Saint-Arnaudet al. 2009), e.g., cultural transmission, land access, communityconsultation, biodiversity conservation, and job creation. Ourwork, however, remains different. We started with the idea ofidentifying successful conditions for forest-based developmentfrom the perspective of Essipit inhabitants. We ended up with anAboriginal world view, namely the Essipit's vision that sets thestage for a promising dialogue with forest planners. Above all, ourresults show that forestry is not the finality. It could be a means toachieve a better synchronization between humans and the forest.This is possible through a common language that formulates ex-plicitly the needs of the community. That is how the well-being ofboth could improve. In comparison, FN C&I place stress on forestmanagement, creating a baseline to monitor local forest changes,compare situations, and evaluate the sustainability of forest man-agement systems. In short, the concurrence with previously re-ported themes in Aboriginal C&I studies strengthens the externalvalidity of our work.

Our case study can inform forest management in a narrowsense, but it also shows a path for FN communities to apprehendtheir reality and to make it understandable in terms of social andeconomic development. Essipit's objectives are more than a “wishlist” for two main reasons. First, participants have discountedunrealistic objectives (e.g., providing free and unconditional ac-cess to the Innu Assi for individual interests). Second, Essipit isalready implementing some objectives (e.g., creation of a localconsultation panel within the community, development of a for-est economic strategy with cultural features, analysis of nontim-ber forest product opportunities) demonstrating the robustnessof this observable objectives approach.

Molander (2014, p. ii) argues that the dominant narrative inforestry is worth reframing, “…not only since the field of forestryhas lagged behind other academic disciplines in explicitly open-ing up decolonizing and anti-colonial spaces, but because it hasalso been historically complicit in both entrenching and repro-ducing settler–colonial structures of domination on unceded in-digenous lands.” Smith (1999) made similar comments aboutdecolonizing research more generally. Thus, instead of articulat-ing our objectives around common Western principles separatingenvironment, economy, and society into three different spheres,our study proposes three FN principles that integrate across theseareas. Our principles are also congruent with the six characteris-tics of FN cultures proposed by Trosper (Trosper 1995, 2009;Trosper et al. 2012): identity, connectedness, reciprocity, account-ability, sustainability, and subsidiary role of the market economy.Our study used slightly different terms to better represent theviews of our research informants. Furthermore, the work of Tro-sper did not explicitly single out autonomy as a characteristic.One reason is that each community is unique and one should notexpect an exact fit given that Trosper distilled his characteristicsfrom a worldwide survey of indigenous communities. Anotherpossible reason is that American Indian tribes and Canadian FNcommunities are characterized by different economic, legal, con-stitutional, and cultural contexts in that US “tribes … have beenable to retain or obtain some independence” (Trosper 1995, p. 83).In sum, the case of Essipit exemplifies that FN participation inmainstream Canadian forestry models requires a more complexapproach to forest-based development than the current ap-proaches in use. Moreover, there is a need to acknowledge theirphilosophies while enabling them to realize their long-term aspi-rations.

5. ConclusionThe forest industry has been promoted as an avenue to provide

abundant opportunities for FN communities across Canada. Yetforestry initiatives continue to provide few benefits, leading tofrustration for these communities. We know that differences in

the values held by FNs and mainstream society exist, but FN com-munities have had limited opportunities to affirm how they wantto participate in forest-based development. There have been note-worthy efforts made by FNs to engage in existing forestry modelsor by forest managers to incorporate FN values and knowledge(Wyatt 2008). There are, however, few alternative models (e.g.,tenures or self-government arrangements) that are based on FNvalues, systems, and paradigms.

This case study shows how objectives identified by the EssipitInnu FN reflect the values of FNs elsewhere in relation to forest-based development. The Essipit approach enables a style of for-estry based on “FN deep roots in the forests”. More specifically,our method allowed the community to develop a set of core prin-ciples and measurable objectives for forest-based development.The diversity and scope of objectives identified in this researchcontribute to the argument that FN peoples have a more diversi-fied approach to forest-based development than dominant for-estry models. There are parallels between this case study onEssipit and previously reported work on C&I developed by or withFNs, although these frameworks are tools to demonstrate forestmanagement sustainability and they should be reviewed in termsof cultural references to better reflect Innu aimun and values.

We acknowledge that context is important, because FN commu-nities often have different realities. What is relevant to Essipitmight not be the same for another FN community. A researchcontribution is the identification and use of the Innu languagethat adds to Essipit efforts to revitalize its traditional language.Further research with other Innu communities will provide a bet-ter understanding of the Innu concepts proposed in this paperand of FN values and goals on their own terms. That being said,this research proposes principles that are consistent with workdone in other indigenous communities across North America.Furthermore, this research offers a process that is transferable toother contexts, representing a small but strategic step towardsgreater FN participation in forest-based development. We suggestthat it constitutes a road map, with specific details about how tomeet the expectations of FN communities. It provides an organiz-ing framework for prioritizing and selecting forest-based develop-ment projects, as well as for monitoring and evaluation purposes.Notably, developing such a framework can help forest companiesdevelop a good working understanding and relationship with FNcommunities and their interests related to forest-based develop-ment in their territories. Understanding the forest through Ab-original concepts can be a stepping stone to successfullyincorporate the principle of free, prior, and informed consent(FPIC). As pointed out by Smith (2015, p. 25), such an approach“has the potential to open up new avenues for conservation anddevelopment, rather than relying on colonial approaches whereboth governments and other stakeholders (ENGOs and industry)decide that they know what is best for First Nations.” In sum, thispaper proposes a way to move beyond consultation and accom-modation processes and to show how FN communities can suc-cessfully engage in forest-based development.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the First Nation of Essipit for their

support and collaboration on this research. We also thank theSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, theFaculty of Forestry at UBC, the Hampton Fund, and Mitacs fortheir financial support.

ReferencesAdam, M.C., and Kneeshaw, D. 2008. Local level criteria and indicator frame-

works: a tool used to assess Aboriginal forest ecosystem values. For. Ecol.Manage. 255(7): 2024–2037. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.051.

Anderson, R.B. 1997. Corporate/indigenous partnerships in economic develop-ment: the First Nations in Canada. World Development, 25(9): 1483–1503.doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00050-8.

Beaudoin et al. 517

Published by NRC Research Press

Can

. J. F

or. R

es. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y L

akeh

ead

Uni

vers

ity o

n 04

/04/

18Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Babbie, E.R. 2010. The practice of social research. Wadsworth Cengage Learning,Belmont, California.

Barbier, E.B. 1987. The concept of sustainable economic development. Environ.Conserv. 14(2): 101–110. doi:10.1017/S0376892900011449.

Beaudoin, J.M. 2012. Aboriginal economic development of forest resources: howcan we think outside the wood box? For. Chron. 88(5): 571–577. doi:10.5558/tfc2012-108.

Beaudoin, J.M. 2014. Growing deep roots: learning from the Essipit's culturallyadapted model of Aboriginal forestry. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Co-lumbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Beaudoin, J.M., LeBel, L., and Bouthillier, L. 2009. Aboriginal forestry entrepre-neurship: a case study in Mashteuiatsh Ilnu Nation. For. Chron. 85(5): 783–788. doi:10.5558/tfc85783-5.

Beaudoin, J.M., St-Georges, G., and Wyatt, S. 2012. Valeurs autochtones etmodèles forestiers: le cas de la Première Nation des Innus d'Essipit. Recher-ches amérindiennes de Québec, XLII(2–3): 97–109.

Beckley, T.M. 1998. Moving toward consensus-based forest management: a com-parison of industrial, co-managed, community and small private forests inCanada. For. Chron. 74(5): 736–744. doi:10.5558/tfc74736-5.

Berkes, F., and Davidson-Hunt, I. 2006. Biodiversity, traditional managementsystems, and cultural landscapes: examples from the boreal forest of Canada.Int. Soc. Sci. J. 58(187): 35–47. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2451.2006.00605.x.

Booth, A.L., and Muir, BR. 2013. “How far do you have to walk to find peaceagain?” A case study of First Nations' operational values for a communityforest in Northeast British Columbia, Canada. Nat. Resour. Forum, 37(3):153–166. doi:10.1111/1477-8947.12005.

Booth, A.L., and Skelton, N.W. 2011. “There's a conflict right there”: integratingindigenous community values into commercial forestry in the Tl'azt'enFirst Nation. Society and Natural Resources, 24(4): 368–383. doi:10.1080/08941920902755390.

Bouthillier, L. 2001. Quebec: consolidation and movement towards sustainability.In Canadian Forest Policy: adapting to change. Edited by M. Howlett. University ofToronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Boyd, J., and Trosper, R. 2010. The use of joint ventures to accomplish Aboriginaleconomic development: two examples from British Columbia. InternationalJournal of Commons, 4(1): 36–55.

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2006. Criteria and indicators of sustain-able forest management in Canada: national status 2005. Natural ResourcesCanada, Ottawa.

Chiasson, G., and Leclerc, É. 2013. La gouvernance locale des forêts publiquesquébécoises: une avenue de développement des régions périphériques?Presses de l'Université du Québec, Québec.

Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel (CSSP). 1995. Report 3: First Nations perspec-tive relating to forest practices standards in Clayoquot Sound. Available fromhttp://www.cortex.ca/Rep3.pdf [accessed 11 January 2015].

Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing amongfive traditions. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Dana, L.P. 2015. Indigenous entrepreneurship: an emerging field of research.International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 14(2): 158–169. doi:10.1504/IJBG.2015.067433.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014. Sustain-able forest management. Available from http://www.fao.org/forestry/sfm/85084/en/ [accessed 8 December 2015].

Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC). 2014. Vision2020 report card: 2010to 2012. Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 2015. International generic indicators. Avail-able from https://ca.fsc.org/preview.fsc-std-60-004-international-generic-indicators.a-1011.pdf [accessed 22 February 2016].

Fortmann, L. 2008. Participatory research in conservation and rural livelihoods:doing science together. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK.

Government of Canada. 2014. Employment Insurance. Available from https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/index.html?_ga=1.145660724.1296306755.1425907793 [accessed 31 July 2015].

Government of Canada. 2015. Aboriginal forestry initiative. Available fromhttps://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/federal-programs/13125 [accessed 23 March2015].

Government of Quebec. 2004. Entente de principe d'ordre général entre lesPremières Nations de Mamuitun et de Nutashkuan, le gouvernement duQuébec et le gouvernement du Canada. Available at http://www.versuntraite.gouv.qc.ca/documentation/publications/EntentePrincipeInnus.pdf [accessed27 July 2015].

Government of Quebec. 2011. Plan Nord. Faire le Nord ensemble: le chantierd'une generation. Available from ftp://ftp.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/Public/Bibliointer/Mono/2011/08/1078659.pdf [accessed 27 July 2015].

Gysbers, J., and Lee, P. 2003. Aboriginal communities in forest regions inCanada: disparities in socio-economic conditions. Global Forest Watch,Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Hickey, C., and Nelson, M. 2005. Partnerships between First Nations and theforest sector: a national survey. Sustainable Forest Management Network,Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Holm, T., Pearson, J., and Chavis, B. 2003. Peoplehood: a model for the extensionof sovereignty in American Indian studies. Wicazo Sa Review, 18(1): 7–24.doi:10.1353/wic.2003.0004.

Hornborg, A. 1994. Environmentalism, ethnicity and sacred places: reflections.

Canadian Review of Sociology, 31(3): 245–267. doi:10.1111/j.1755-618X.1994.tb00948.x.

Howlett, M., and Rayner, J. 2001. The business and government nexus: principalelements and dynamics of the Canadian forest policy regime. In Canadianforest policy: adapting to change. Edited by M. Howlett. University of TorontoPress, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Jorgensen, M. 2007. Rebuilding native nations: strategies for governance anddevelopment. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Karjala, M.K., Sherry, E.E., and Dewhurst, S.M. 2004. Criteria and indicators forsustainable forest planning: a framework for recording Aboriginal resourceand social values. For. Pol. Econ. 6: 95–110. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00117-X.

Kopra, K., and Sevenson, M. 2008. Aboriginal community-based criteria andindicators: a localised approach. Sustainable Forest Management Network,Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Krueger, R.A., and Casey, M.A. 2000. Focus group. A practical guide for appliedresearch. 3rd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Molander, M.G. 2014. Decolonizing the mind in forestry: centering settler–colonial dis-possessionandmutuallycontestedsovereignties inBritishColumbia's forestry land-scape and narrative. M.Sc. thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver,British Columbia.

Nadeau, S., Shindler, B.A., and Kakoyannis, C. 2003. Beyond the economicmodel: assessing sustainability. In Two paths towards sustainable forests:public values in Canada and the United States. Edited by B. Shindler,T. Beckley, and M. Finley. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Natcher, D., and Hickey, C. 2002. Putting the community back into community-based resource management: a criteria and indicators approach to sustainability.Hum. Organ. 61(4): 350–363. doi:10.17730/humo.61.4.dem6fx3npep78xaq.

National Aboriginal Forestry Association (NAFA). 1995. An Aboriginal criterionfor sustainable forest management. National Aboriginal Forestry Associa-tion, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

National Aboriginal Forestry Association (NAFA). 2007. Second report on FirstNation-held forest tenures in Canada. National Aboriginal Forestry Associa-tion, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Nikolakis, W., and Nelson, H. 2015. To log or not to log? How forestry fits withthe goals of First Nations in British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 45(6): 639–646.doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0349.

Parkins, J., Stedman, R., Patriquin, M., and Burns, M. 2006. Strong policies, pooroutcomes: longitudinal analysis of forest sector contributions to Aboriginalcommunities in Canada. The Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development,5(1): 61–73.

Parsons, R., and Prest, G. 2003. Aboriginal forestry in Canada. For. Chron. 79(4):779–784. doi:10.5558/tfc79779-4.

Porter, M.E. 2000. Location, competition, and economic development: local clus-ters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1): 15–34.doi:10.1177/089124240001400105.

Proulx, M.U., and Gauthier, J. 2012. Regards sur l'économie des collectivitésautochtones du Québec. Presses de l'Université du Québec, Québec.

Rodon, T. 2003. En partenariat avec l'état: les expériences de cogestion desautochtones du Canada. Presses de l'Université Laval, Québec.

Ross, M.M., and Smith, P. 2002. Accommodation of aboriginal rights: the needfor an aboriginal forest tenure. Sustainable Forest Management Network,Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). 1996. Report of the RoyalCommission on Aboriginal Peoples. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada,Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Saint-Arnaud, M., and Papatie, C. 2012. Eligawîn: la foresterie a la croisée deschemins pour les gens de Kitcisakik. Recherches amérindiennes au Québec,XLII(2–3): 111–128.

Saint-Arnaud, M., Asselin, H., Dubé, C., Croteau, Y., and Papatie, C. 2009. Devel-oping criteria and indicators for Aboriginal forestry: mutual learningthrough collaborative research. In Changing the culture of forestry inCanada: building effective institution for Aboriginal engagement in sustain-able forest management. Edited by M. Stevenson and D. Natcher. CCI Pressand Sustainable Forest Management Network, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Shearer, J., Peters, P., and Davidson-Hunt, I. 2009. Co-producing a WhitefeatherForest cultural landscape monitoring framework. In Changing the culture offorestry in Canada: building effective institution for Aboriginal engagementin sustainable forest management. Edited by M. Stevenson and D. Natcher. CCIPress and Sustainable Forest Management Network, Edmonton, Alberta,Canada.

Sherry, E., Halseth, R., Fondahl, G., Karjala, M., and Leon, B. 2005. Local-levelcriteria and indicators: an Aboriginal perspective on sustainable forest man-agement. Forestry, 78(5): 513–539. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpi048.

Simard, J.-J. 2003. La réduction. L'Autochtone inventé et les Amérindiensd'aujourd'hui. Septentrion, Sillery.

Smith, L.T. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples.Zed Books, London.

Smith, M.A. 2015. Reflection on First Nations in their boreal homelands in On-tario: between a rock and a caribou. Conservation and Society, 13(1): 23–38.doi:10.4103/0972-4923.161214.

Smith, M.A., Symington, E., and Allen, S. 2010. First Nations' criteria and indica-tors of sustainable forest management: a review. In Planning co-existence:aboriginal issues in forest and land use planning. Edited by M. Stevenson andD. Natcher. CCI Press, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

518 Can. J. For. Res. Vol. 46, 2016

Published by NRC Research Press

Can

. J. F

or. R

es. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y L

akeh

ead

Uni

vers

ity o

n 04

/04/

18Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Stevenson, M.G., and Natcher, D.C. (Editors). 2009. Changing the culture of for-estry in Canada: building effective institution for Aboriginal engagement insustainable forest management. CCI Press and Sustainable Forest Manage-ment Network, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

St-Georges, G. 2009. Préoccupations, valeurs et aspirations des Innus d'Essipitrelativement a leur territoire anscestral, le Nitassinan. M.Sc. thesis, Univer-sité Laval, Quebec.

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. 1994. Grounded theory methodology. In Handbook ofqualitative research. Edited by N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln. Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, California.

Tindall, D.B., Trosper, R.L., and Perreault, P. 2013. Aboriginal peoples and forestlands in Canada. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Trosper, R.L. 1988. Multicriterion decision-making in a tribal context. PolicyStudies Journal, 16(4): 826–842. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1988.tb00688.x.

Trosper, R. 1995. Traditional American Indian economic policy. AmericanIndian Culture and Research Journal, 19(1): 65–95. doi:10.17953/aicr.19.1.1l1w15g072k576k4.

Trosper, R. 2007. Indigenous influence on forest management on the Menomi-nee Indian Reservation. For. Ecol. Manage. 249: 134–139. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.04.037.

Trosper, R. 2009. Resilience, reciprocity and ecological economics: NorthwestCoast sustainability. Taylor & Francis, New York.

Trosper, R., Parrotta, J., Agnoletti, M., Bocharnikov, V., Feary, S., Gabay, M.,Gamborg, C., Latorre, J., Johann, E., Laletin, A., Fui, L., Oteng-Yeboah, A.,Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Ramakrishnan, P., and Yeo-Chang, Y. 2012. The uniquecharacter of traditional forest-related knowledge: threats and challengesahead. In Traditional forest-related knowledge: sustaining communities, eco-systems and biocultural diversity. Edited by J.A. Parrotta and R.L. Trosper.Springer, New York.

Webb, J., Sewepagaham, H., and Sewepagaham, C. 2009. Negotiating culturalsustainability: deep consultation and the Little Red River Cree in theWabasca–Mikkwa Lowlands, Alberta. In Changing the culture of forestry inCanada: building effective institution for Aboriginal engagement in sustain-able forest management. Edited by M. Stevenson and D. Natcher. CCI Pressand Sustainable Forest Management Network, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Wilmsen, C., Elmendorf, W., Fisher, L., Ross, J., Sarathy, B., and Wells, G. 2008.Partnerships for empowerment: participatory research for community-basednatural resource management. Earthscan, London.

Working Group on Natural Resource Development (WGNRD). 2015. First Nationsand Natural Resource Development: advancing positive, impactful change.Available from http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/Working-Group-on-Natural-Resource-Development-Report.pdf. Working Group on Natural Resource De-velopment (WGNRD), Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Ottawa,Ontario, Canada.

Wulfhorst, J.D., Eisenhauer, B.W., Gripne, S.L., and Ward, J.M. 2008. Core criteriaand assessment of participatory research. In Partnerships for empowerment:participatory research for community-based natural resource management.Edited by C. Wilmsen, W. Elmendorf, L. Fisher, J. Ross, B. Sarathy, and G. Wells.Earthscan, London.

Wyatt, S. 2004. Co-existence of Atikamekw and industrial forestry paradigms.Occupation and management of forestlands in the St-Maurice river basin,Québec. Ph.D. thesis, Université Laval, Québec.

Wyatt, S. 2008. First Nations, forest lands, and “Aboriginal forestry” in Canada:from exclusion to co-management and beyond. Can. J. For. Res. 38(2): 171–180.doi:10.1139/X07-214.

Wyatt, S., Kessels, M., and Laerhoven, F. 2015. Indigenous peoples' expecta-tions for forestry in New Brunswick: are rights enough? Society & NaturalResources, 28(6): 625–640. doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.970735.

Beaudoin et al. 519

Published by NRC Research Press

Can

. J. F

or. R

es. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y L

akeh

ead

Uni

vers

ity o

n 04

/04/

18Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.