 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CBD: Friend or Foe? |
| | Although the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has many positive elements concerning indigenous peoples, the detail of its implementation is left up to governments, and in British Columbia(BC) there is a lack of political will to take it seriously. The CBD is a landmark in the environment and development field, as it takes a comprehensive rather than a sectoral approach to the conservation of the Earth's biological diversity and sustainable use of biological resources. The preamble of the text and annexes to the CBD recognises the need for the full participation of indigenous peoples in the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Article 8(j) calls for respect, preservation and maintenance of the knowledge and practices of indigenous communities, promotes their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders, and encourages the equitable sharing of benefits. Article 10(c) encourages the customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional practices.
Lack of Political Will
However, the CBD is a double-edged sword. The CBD leaves it up to individual parties to determine how most of the provisions are to be implemented, with the focus on action at the national level. Now, this is good, when the party has the political will to implement the provisions. The biggest issue in British Columbia (BC) and Canada is the lack of political will. Article 8(j) is subject to national legislation, which all contracting parties are supposed to have or develop, but Canada has not. Although the CBD recognises the need to respect and use traditional knowledge in sustainable forest management, it does not protect the rights of the holders to their knowledge and practices. The CBD calls for the full participation of indigenous peoples in all levels of policy making, yet Canada makes no resources available for representatives of First Nations (FN) communities to attend and participate at national and international fora in a full, and unfiltered manner. Decision V/4 states that indigenous peoples should be involved in assessing the status and trends, gaps and priority actions needed to address threats to forest biological diversity. However there are no resources available to FN to carry out such tasks.
Ignoring Indigenous Values
The programme of work established for forests at COP4 calls for holistic and inter-sectoral ecosystem approaches that take into account social, cultural and economic considerations. Decision IV/7 also calls for the use of traditional knowledge in sustainable forest management and the equitable sharing of benefits. Under activities, methodologies are to be developed that ensure that forest plans and practices reflect the social and cultural values of forests. The Forest Act, forest plans and practices in BC do not implement the ecosystem approach, protect non-timber and other cultural values, nor incorporate the socio-economic needs and interests of FN. Under the Forest Act the management of forest land is primarily for timber production. Forest licence holders are not obliged to use traditional knowledge in forest development planning, nor to manage for FN cultural values that are not considered 'archaeological' and protected by the BC Heritage Conservation Act. Sustenance resources and spiritual values may be managed for only when, and where, they do not conflict with timber development and harvest plans.
Decision V/16 notes the importance of integrating the work on Article 8(j) and related provisions with the full and effective participation of indigenous communities into national policies, strategies and action plans. However, Canada's national forest strategy and its criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management were developed without the full and meaningful participation of FN in BC. Consequently they only superficially reflect their values and priorities. In many instances, FN communities are not aware of what is contained in the decisions of the CBD. This is because FN have not been meaningfully consulted or informed by the government about their positions or the contents of the convention, even though the Crown always has a fiduciary obligation to consult with and involve aboriginal peoples in discussions and decisions regarding their aboriginal title territories and resources.
Recent recommendations from SBSTTA7 called for the need to respect the rights and interests of indigenous and local communities. However, in BC the rights and interests of FN outside the treaty process are ignored, not respected. This is a major obstacle to the meaningful involvement of FN in the management and conservation of forested lands and resources within their traditional territories. FN do not have veto power or meaningful input into decisions concerning the use of forest lands and resources within their traditional territories. In BC, the Forest Act establishes the basic structure of the forest tenure system and defines the associated rights and responsibilities of different types of licence holders. The Minister of Forests is granted all decision-making powers over forest management, including the planning and management of the production of timber and timber cut. FN are afforded only a limited role in decision-making. In many cases, only a letter is sent by the forest licence holder to the FN community advising them of the forest development plans and requesting their input after the management plans have been drafted.
Equitable Shares?
FN in BC do not have access to an equitable share of the resources or the benefits derived from forest resources extracted from their traditional territories. The socio-economic needs of their communities are a critical factor in their efforts towards self-sufficiency. Social conditions in FN communities have long been below that of other British Columbians, with higher infant mortality, suicide and birth rates, welfare dependency and high rates of unemployment. The equitable sharing of benefits and resources is paramount to FN communities achieving self-sufficiency in non-treaty environments.
So, although many opportunities exist in the CBD for FN to be involved in the conservation and sustainable use of forest resources, unfortunately in BC we are faced with a political environment that seeks to maximise economic certainty regardless of the continued loss of biological diversity. However, what is most ironic is that the 'avoidance of an environmental and social catastrophe resulting from the loss of biological diversity' is exactly what the parties to the CBD were supposedly taking practical steps to achieve.
|
| | Contact
Dr. Charlene Higgins, There's More to Forests, Can |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
