Protecting Forests and Peoples of the Forest
By Roger Senecal
Treaty 8 First Nations are peoples of the forest. Because their lives are so inextricably tied to the forest, anything that affects the forest impacts upon their lives. This relationship between First Nations lives' and the forest is the dominant theme that colours all aspects of their relationships with the Crown, and with others who wish to utilize the forest.
This theme can be seen in past relationships with the fur traders, the Federal Crown during treaty negotiations, in the relationship to the Provincial Crown, and with corporations such as Alberta Pacific which has been licensed by the Provincial Crown to harvest some 590 truckloads of hardwood per day to feed their pulp mill operation.
The Federal Crown sent Treaty commissioners into Northern Alberta in 1899 with full authority to negotiate the terms of Treaty 8 with the First Nation people. In the full spirit and intent of Treaty 8, promises were made by these commissioners to First Nation leaders, that the forest and environment in which they lived would be retained in a state that would allow for the continuation of their lifestyles in perpetuity.
In keeping with the Treaty, First Nations have shared the land with non-Indian settlers. Their continuing good will and respect for the Treaty has been reciprocated by interference with their lives, conscious undermining of their culture, and growing levels of encroachment onto their lands. The forest environment has been degraded by increasingly rapid, large scale industrial development. The Crown has not lived up to its obligations to the Treaty.
In 1930, the Federal Crown transferred administrative responsibility of natural resources over to the Provincial Crown. Since the province gained control of the resources from the Federal government, Alberta has managed the forests and resources with little regard for the legal obligation of the Crown to protect the forest environment in the interests of First Nation peoples. Moreover, their administration of forest lands has been without regard to First Nation peoples' reliance on the forest and its resources for sustenance and well-being. In a typically European manner, Alberta's management policies view the Northern forest as a hinterland from which dominant society can extract a mix of valued products with minimal thought as to what this is doing to the land. This exploitation of resources is done in the name of economic growth, economic diversification, and development. One must ask, economic growth and development for whom, and at what cost?
"The present excessive harvest imposes costs on the First Nation peoples and the environment which are not included in the equation."
The present extraction and use of resources does not reflect the true costs incurred due to their extraction. The present excessive harvest imposes costs on the First Nation peoples and the environment which are not included in the equation. If the average Albertan had to endure these costs, this form of forestry development would be totally unacceptable. But as these costs are incurred by First Nation people, who in large are invisible to the average Albertan, they are not considered important.
Economic benefit accrues to mainstream Alberta, without consideration to the destruction which this development imposes on the forest environment and First Nation peoples. First Nation people receive little benefit from this type of development, yet they and their children must bear the brunt of the costs.
The Alberta Pacific operation is one example of large scale forestry development that seriously harms the environment and causes many direct and indirect negative effects on the lives of First Nation people. Because First Nation people are dependent on the forest for sustenance, their living environment, and their identity, they are much more vulnerable than non-Indians to the negative effects as individuals and cultures by destruction of the forest.
With the costs of this form of development so high, and the benefits to First Nations so low, we question the wisdom of such development. We especially question this wisdom when less environmentally and socially intrusive alternatives of development exist, and when these can be demonstrated to be more beneficial to all of society. With the benefits to mainstream society so minimal and fleeting, and the catastrophic effects it inflicts on First Nation peoples and the environment, this form of development simply has no place in the Northern forests.
With the prime motivations of pulp companies being fibre production and maximizing profits for their shareholders, how can it possibly be suggested that these companies have the best interests of the forest in mind - and that they are capable of managing the forest in an environmentally sustainable manner? The Alberta government likewise has no affinity for the land. It is subject to short-term political pressures to develop the North despite the problems inherent to their approach.
In this big business, big government scenario, which happens to be the case in Alberta, tactics for short-term economic and political gain replace conscious management of the forest. Alternative forms of resources are ignored if the company holds interest only in producing fibre. Alternative forms of harvest and processing are overlooked if they cut into the bottom line of profit, or do not produce high tech monoliths of political action. Other uses of the forests, including the traditional uses which have been practised on the land for thousands of years, are foregone because of the single minded perspective that forests are merely for fibre farming. The multinationals shall not have to endure a barren, altered land, and politicians shall not have to live with their mistakes. It will be First Nation peoples who will continue to make their home in the forest. Should they not have a say in its future?
"With the prime motivations of pulp companies being fibre production and maximizing profits for their shareholders, how can it possibly be suggested that these companies have the best interests of the forest in mind?"
The Great Bear Environmental Health Study is a project that is looking at the connections between the management of the lands of Treaty 8, and the holistic health of the First Nation peoples of the region. In documenting the changes in the natural environment due to industrial development, and demonstrating the effects which these changes have on the lives of First Nation peoples, it is an approach to find out what is hurting First Nation peoples, so that we can find ways to begin the healing process. In this way, the real problems will be better understood, and work towards real solutions to these problems will then be possible.
In the initial year of the Great Bear, discussion centred around: the lack of care that the dominant society and governments have for the environment; the destruction of the environment, and how this effects peoples' health; the lack of control that First Nations have in managing the land, the resources, and their lives; and the role that First Nation people and governments will play in protecting the environment.
The underlying truth being drawn out through the Great Bear is that the health problems which First Nation peoples face today are not "social problems" for which dominant society can blame the First Nations. These so called social problems are merely symptoms of the context that First Nation peoples have been, and continue to be forced to live. The symptoms stem from the degradation of the environment through development. This continues to be validated in the comments of the elders, and the experiences of First Nation and Aboriginal peoples across Canada, and internationally.
First Nation governments are increasingly demanding the right to participate as coequals in the decision making arena. Only through asserting their government status and rightful standing as co-managers of the land, will they be able to ensure that their concerns are heard and incorporated into the management of the environment to which they are tied. The concept of sustainable development must include serious attention by the Crown to their trust obligations to maintain an environment within forest lands that will support and sustain exercise of First Nation rights.
Only through First Nation involvement in the management of the forest can their cultural uniqueness, and the complexities of the forest be protected. First Nations require, and are entitled to, more than mere comment on postage stamp parcels around their sacred areas, and two kilometre buffers around their reservations. These translucent forests do not sustain culture any more than they sustain the ecological integrity of the land. Likewise, menial labour is no replacement for a way of life based in the forest, for people whose individual and collective identity rests on the continued existence of the forest.
When the Provincial the Federal Crowns accept their Treaty obligations to First Nations peoples, and through implementation of the Treaty, First Nation governments shall obtain their rightful standing as co-managers of the Northern forests. They will then be able to manage the forest in a more holistic manner, better protecting their interests, their futures, and the land. As conservation of the environment is closely tied to the full implementation of Treaty and Aboriginal rights, support from the environmental community in the protection of the rights and interests of First Nation peoples would be greatly appreciated.
By Roger Senecal – Grande Council of Treaty 8 First Nations
