First Nations,

Forestry, and Natural

Resources Information

Needs in British Columbia

FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources

F I L E R E P O R T 0 9 – 0 1

i

First Nations, Forestry, and Natural Resources Information Needs in British Columbia

A. Krishnaswamy, L. Joseph, E. Simmons, G. Thomas, and J. Passmore

FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources

ii

© 2009 Forrex Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources Society, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada.

Articles or contributions in this publication may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use free of charge to the recipient in educational, training, and not-for-profit activities provided that their source and authorship are fully acknowledged. However, reproduction, adaptation, translation, application to other forms or media, or any other use of these works, in whole or in part, for commercial use, resale, or redistribution, requires the written consent of Forrex Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources Society and of all contributing copyright owners. This publication and the articles and contributions herein may not be made accessible to the public over the Internet without the written consent of Forrex. For consents, contact: Managing Editor, Forrex, Suite 702, 235 1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4, or email jem@forrex.org

The information and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the respective authors and For-rex does not warrant their accuracy or reliability, and expressly disclaims any liability in relation thereto.

For more information, visit the Forrex website: www.forrex.org

This report is published by:

Forrex Forum for Research and Extension in Natural ResourcesSuite 702, 235–1st AvenueKamloops, BC V2C 3J4

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

First nations, forestry, and natural resources information needs in British Columbia / A. Krishnaswamy ... [et al.].

(File report ; 09-01)Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 978-1-894822-58-9

1. Natural resources--British Columbia--Management. 2. Forest management--British Columbia. 3. Indians of North America--Science--British Columbia. 4. Traditional ecological knowledge--British Columbia. I. Krishnaswamy, A. (Ajit), 1953- II. FORREX III. Series: File report (FORREX) ; 09-01

SD568.B7F57 2009 333.7089’970711 C2009-905983-5

Production of this report is funded, in part, by the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range through the Forest Investment Account–Forest Science Program.

iii

ExEcutivE Summary

Research, technology development, and extension organizations strive to provide the best available information to support sustainable development of forest and other natural resources. Aboriginal orga-nizations and communities in British Columbia retain Indigenous knowledge about natural resources but also require information about and need to be involved in resource management decisions. Forrex, on behalf of the BC Ministry of Forests and Range Forest Investment Account–Forest Science Program, conducted a series of interviews and an online survey with British Columbia’s First Nations natural re-source practitioners to better understand their needs for forest science and ecosystem information, and to identify the barriers they face in participating in natural resource management (NRM). Results of this needs assessment will be used by the Forest Science Program to guide future priorities and strategies.

Invitations to participate in this needs assessment were sent out to most of the 203 First Nations in British Columbia: 46 (approximately 23%) agreed to participate. Interviews and the online survey were conducted during March and April 2009.

The most frequently identified barrier to First Nations involvement in NRM was the ability to par-ticipate in decision making and to be employed in NRM fields. Although 39% of respondents said their participation in NRM has improved over the years, lack of funding and First Nations capacity were identified as the main barriers to their continued and/or increased participation in NRM. Lack of science-based information was also identified as a barrier, which emphasizes the need for extension with First Nations.

Respondents placed the most emphasis on needs related to education and training, followed closely by participation and jobs in NRM. Access to research and digital data was identified by most respon-dents as their priority need for greater participation in NRM.

Nearly all survey respondents said they were interested in sustainable forest management (SFM: 91%) and ecosystem-based management (EBM: 100%) approaches. However, most felt that their level of access to information on these approaches was low to medium. They identified a need for more information on using ecological inventories to monitor and evaluate biodiversity and on incorporating Indigenous knowledge and social, cultural, and economic indicators into management. Other informa-tion needs focused on riparian management, non-timber forest resources, and climate change impacts. Some interviewees said SFM and EBM approaches are compatible with First Nations traditional prac-tices of being stewards of the land; thus, they would like Indigenous knowledge to be included in these approaches.

Respondents also said Indigenous knowledge is not given as much importance as western science in NRM. They suggested NRM planning, policy, and research should focus on ways to use Indig-enous knowledge alongside western science. When asked about extension support to use Indigenous knowledge, most respondents said they would like information on how other First Nations are using Indigenous knowledge in NRM.

Most respondents stated that training and staffing are needed to better utilize resource management technology, especially GIS and referral tracking and mapping software. Most said that their level of

Citation—Krishnaswamy, A., L. Joseph, E. Simmons, G. Thomas, and J. Passmore. 2009. First Nations, Forestry, and Natural Resource Information Needs in British Columbia. Forrex Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources, Kamloops, BC. File Report 09-01. www.forrex.org/publications/other/FileReports/fr09-01.pdf

iv

access to education and training in NRM is low to medium. Many stated that there are few training and educational opportunities available at the band level, and educational facilities are often located far away. Respondents identified the need for education in EBM and traditional gathering, certification in silviculture surveys, and training as timber evaluation cruisers, licensed scalers, danger tree assessors, and field GPS operators.

Some broad recommendations emerging from this needs assessment are as follows:

• Undertakemorecollaborativeinitiativesandprojects,andgreaterinformation-sharingbetweengovernments and First Nations to improve working relationships in NRM.

• IncreaseextensionwithFirstNationstoaddressalackofscience-basedinformationandresearch,which presents a barrier to their participation in NRM.

• IncreaseextensionintheuseofIndigenousknowledgeinNRM.• IncreaseextensionwithFirstNationsonSFMandEBMapproachesandonwaystoincorporate

Indigeneous knowledge into those approaches.

The needs assessment indicated that First Nations communities in British Columbia clearly have a need and a desire to participate in NRM. The results of this assessment will help Forrex and the BC Ministry of Forests and Range define priorities and strategies for future research and extension investments. It will help people involved with First Nations land and resource management identify information, training, and education needs. It is hoped that the assessment will also provide First Na-tions with a point of reference to compare their knowledge and information needs to those of other First Nations groups in the province. This needs assessment had the added benefit of relationship building with First Nations resource managers. The long-term benefits of such an effort can be sustained only if the process of building relationships and trust is continued. As a result of conducting the interviews with individuals in First Nations organizations, the extension specialists have a better understanding of the information needs and institutional barriers within First Nations communities and are better able to implement activities to meet their needs. Future assessments will evaluate how effective research and ex-tension activities are at meeting the needs of First Nations in accessing information that will help ensure the sustainable development of British Columbia’s natural resources.

keywords: First Nations, natural resource management, needs assessment, barriers, participation, research, extension, training, education, Indigenous knowledge, sustainable forest management, ecosystem-based forest management.

v

acknowlEdgEmEntS

We thank the BC Ministry of Forests and Range for funding this project through the Forest Investment Account–Forest Science Program. We are grateful to the members of the First Nations Advisory Group for their initial request for this needs assessment, and for guidance during the development of this project.

We are indebted to the people from First Nations organizations and communities who took the time to participate in the interviews and complete the online survey. Their invaluable input will help guide future program investments and activities.

We also extend heartfelt thanks to Chris Hollstedt for technical and strategic guidance, and to Gord Austin and Esther Soko for their diligence in providing an updated and accurate contact list of people involved in First Nations land and resource management in British Columbia. We also acknowledge and thank the many reviewers for their constructive suggestions regarding draft versions of this report, most of which were used to improve the quality and usefulness of this study.

author contact information

Ajit Krishnaswamy: Socio-economics Extension Specialist, Forrex Forum for Research and Exten-sioninNaturalResources,Room7801,TASCII,8888UniversityDrive,Burnaby,BCV5A1S6. Email: ajit.krishnaswamy@forrex.org

LarryJoseph:ExtensionSpecialist,AboriginalForestryandIndigenousKnowledge,Suite702-2351stAvenue,Kamloops,BCV2C3J4. Email: larry.joseph@forrex.org

EllenSimmons:ExtensionSpecialist,AboriginalForestryandIndigenousKnowledge,RR#2,Site50,Comp8,Penticton,BCV2A6J7. Email: ellen.simmons@forrex.org

GeorginaThomas:ExtensionSpecialist,AboriginalForestryandIndigenousKnowledge,524IslandHwy,CampbellRiver,BCV9W2C1. Email: extension@fnforestrycouncil.ca

JenniferPassmore:295OwenRoad,Gibsons,BCV0N1V1Email: Passmore.Jennifer@gmail.com

vi

vii

contEntS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

1 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Respondent Selection and Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1 Northern Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2 Coastal Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3 Southern Interior Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.4 Profiles of First Nations Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1 Interview Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2 Online Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Interview Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1 BackgroundInformationonHowFirstNationsManageNaturalResources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.1 WhoManagesNaturalResources? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.2 ApproachestoNaturalResourceManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.3 TypesofAgreementsorLicences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1.4 HarvestingTreesforDomesticUse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2 ParticipationandJobsinNaturalResourceManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2.1 TypesofNaturalResourceManagementParticipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2.2 LevelofParticipationwithGovernmentandIndustry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2.3 ChangesinParticipationoverTime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2.4 BarrierstoParticipatinginNaturalResourceManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2.5 NeedsforParticipatinginNaturalResourceManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3 AccessandKnowledgeNeedsRegardingSustainableForestManagementand Ecosystem-based Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3.1 CurrentAccesstoSustainableForestManagementorEcosystem-based Management Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3.2 BarrierstoParticipatinginSustainableForestManagementor Ecosystem-based Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.3.3 NeedsforParticipatinginSustainableForestManagementor Ecosystem-based Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3.4 CurrentParticipationinSustainableForestManagementand Ecosystem-based Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.4 UseofIndigenousKnowledgeinNaturalResourceManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.4.1 PurposeforWhichIndigenousKnowledgewasCollected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.4.2 ExamplesofUseofIndigenousKnowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.4.3 ExtensionSupportforUsingIndigenousKnowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.4.4 BarrierstoandNeedsforUsingIndigenousKnowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

viii

5.5 NaturalResourceManagementTechnologyNeeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.5.1 TechnologyUsedinNaturalResourceManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.5.2 NaturalResourceManagementTechnology—StrengthsandChallenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.5.3 BarrierstoandNeedsforUsingTechnologyinNaturalResourceManagement . . . . . . . 19 5.6 EducationandTraininginNaturalResourceManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.6.1 AccesstoEducationandTraining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.6.2 BarrierstoandNeedsforEducationandTraining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.7 AnalysisofIdentifiedBarriersandNeedsinNaturalResourceManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.7.1 BarriersandNeedsbyTopics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.7.2 BarriersandNeedsbyResponseCategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Online Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.1 Ecosystem-based Management and Conservation Biology Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.2 Social, Economic, and Cultural Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.3 Watershed Management Information Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.4 Forest Operations and Planning Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.5 OtherForestManagementInformationNeeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7.1 Trends in the Interview Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7.2 Comparison of Results with Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix 1 Sample Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Appendix 2 Interview Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Appendix 3 Online Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

tables

1 First Nations profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Barriers to participating in natural resource management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Barriers to participating in sustainable forest management or ecosystem-based management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Needs for participating in sustainable forest management or ecosystem- based management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 PurposeforwhichIndigenousknowledgewascollected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Examples of use of Indigenous knowledge in natural resource management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Extension support for using Indigenous knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Barriers to and needs for using Indigenous knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Naturalresourcemanagementtechnology—strengthsandchallenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1910 Barriers to and needs for using technology in natural resource management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1911 Barriers to and needs for education and training in natural resource management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

ix

figures

1 Whomanagesnaturalresources? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Approaches to natural resource management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Types of agreements/licences with the Province. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Harvesting and domestic use of trees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Typesofnaturalresourcemanagementparticipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Levels of participation with government and industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Changes in participation over time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Needs for participating in natural resource management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Access to sustainable forest management and ecosystem-based management information . . . . . . . 1410 Access to education and training in natural resource management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2011 Barriers and needs by response categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2212 Ecosystem-based management and biodiversity information needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2413 Social, economic, and cultural information needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2514 Watershed management information needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2615 Forestoperationsandplanninginformationneeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2716 Other forest management information needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

x

1

1 contExt

Forests figure prominently in the well-being of British Columbia’s environment, economy, and com-munities. They cover about two-thirds of the province, and the forest sector provides the foundation of BritishColumbia’seconomy,accountingfor7%ofemploymentand15%ofalleconomicactivity(BCMinistry of Forests and Range 2006). The forest sector is also the most important employer in many rural and First Nations communities. Therefore, ensuring sustainable forest management is vital to the province’s health.

Forests have been economically, culturally, and spiritually significant to First Nations people for thou-sandsofyears.MostFirstNationsreservesareinruralcommunitiesneartheforestlandbase.Directemployment of Aboriginals in the forest sector increased 60% between 1981 and 2001 (from 3930 to 6300individuals),representinganincreasefrom3.5to7.7%oftotaldirectemploymentintheforestsec-tor (BC Ministry of Forests and Range 2006). With increasing education and training in forestry, more First Nations people are filling technical and professional positions in the sector. This provides First Na-tions with economic benefits and the opportunity to influence forest management.

Other natural resources, such as mining and fishing, are also economically and culturally significant to First Nations. Mining provides a larger gross domestic product than forestry and logging if wood product, and pulp and paper manufacturing are not considered (BC Stats 2008). The most valuable mining resources are coal, petroleum, and natural gas. First Nations also depend on the mining of these resources for jobs and economic development in their communities. Often, there is a requirement to consult First Nations in the extraction of these resources.

First Nations’ peoples play a vital role in the management of natural resources in British Columbia, and they are increasingly participating in opportunities to have their interests considered, primarily through the sharing of information with government and industry. Like all resource managers, they require access to relevant and current science, Indigenous knowledge, and other expert information to inform their participation in resource management planning and decision-making processes. However, First Nations communities often lack access to these types of information and the necessary staff and other resources to meaningfully participate in natural resource management (NRM).

Needs assessments that were conducted over the last 10 years, and which included First Nations respondents, indicated there is a need to address barriers to access, trust, and use of information in First Nations communities, and to capture and share Indigenous knowledge when making NRM policies and plans (Gregory and Satterfield 1999; Hollstedt 2000; Michel et al. 2002; Morford and Hollstedt 2007). Respondents identified the need for information on silviculture, hydrology, geomorphology, conser-vation, ecosystem productivity, and socio-economics, in addition to needs that were specific to First Nations interests, including information on sustainable non-timber forest uses and plant and animal inventories; sustainable timber management case studies; and computer facilities (Gregory and Satter-field 1999; Michel et al. 2002). The top priorities identified by First Nations communities with regards to NRM were to:

• buildcapacityofFirstNations’communities,intermsoftechnology,humanresourcesandknowledge;

• accesstechnologicalresources,information,funding,land,andemployment;• revamptheeducationsystemtomeettheneedsofAboriginalcommunities;• acquireknowledgeofandapplybothtraditionalecologicalknowledgeandscience;• protecttheland,itsresources,andwildlife;

2

• requestinvolvementindevelopingnaturalresourcemanagementplansandindecisionmakingwith non-Aboriginals; and

• educatenon-AboriginalsaboutAboriginalcommunities,andAboriginalrightsandtitleasitaffectsNRM.

A comprehensive, province-wide assessment conducted in 2000 indicated that Indigenous knowledge and systems to capture and share it were critical to achieving sustainable development objectives (Holl-stedt 2000). The themes of problem statements and goals that related to First Nations in that assessment were to:

• collect better information about First Nations silviculture regimes;• ensure traditional ecological knowledge has been collected and effectively incorporated into indi-

cators of sustainable forest management;• incorporate Indigenous knowledge into forest management;• develop and implement research and extension strategies to incorporate First Nations information,

concerns, and needs into forest management;• develop indicators to show that a fair balance of economic opportunities is achieved while re-

specting social values of local communities, and is leading to increased opportunities for all and independence for Aboriginal people;

• facilitate mutual respect, effective communication, and knowledge-sharing among First Nations and between First Nations and other natural resource practitioners; and

• increase First Nations primary research capability through professional development and by sup-porting necessary infrastructure.

In 2006, the past performance of the provincial forestry extension program was assessed and new priorities were identified (Morford and Hollstedt 2007). The First Nations respondents agreed with other groups that extension services were more important at the time of the survey than in the previous 10 years. However, other responses from the First Nations participants varied from other groups in several ways. The First Nations respondents were the only group in which all selected “internet” as one of their five most frequently used information sources. They were also more likely than other groups to frequent-ly use consultants or contractors as an information source. This fact needs to be considered by extension specialists as they build relationships with different First Nations.

This project, which builds on lessons learned from past needs assessments, was implemented at the request of the Forest Investment Account–Forest Science Program’s First Nations Advisory Group. Its goal was to determine what science and information First Nations communities want and need to achieve their desired level of involvement in natural resource management. This assessment focused on the natural resource information and knowledge needs of the communities, and identified factors which may limit First Nations participation in NRM.

Forrexdesignedandconductedthisproject.DuringMarch2009,Forrexs Aboriginal Forestry and Indigenous Knowledge Extension Specialists carried out 23 interviews with First Nations groups (bands, tribal councils, treaty offices, and other higher-level organizations) across the province, which repre-sented 46 of British Columbia’s 203 First Nations (approximately 23%). A short, online survey was also sent out to most interviewees to collect additional data on their information needs regarding sustainable forest management (SFM) and ecosystem based management (EBM).

This assessment will help Forrex and the BC Ministry of Forests and Range define priorities and strategies for research and extension investments. The results will be used to structure and improve the research extension programs and activities so that the identified knowledge gaps are addressed. The extension specialists will continue to build relationships and improve communication with people iden-

3

tified as needing information. It is hoped that this assessment will also provide First Nations with a point of reference to compare their knowledge and information needs with those of other First Nations groups in the province.

This document presents a summary of the information and knowledge needs of the 23 First Nations groups that were interviewed and surveyed. It does not provide a word-for-word account of each in-terview, nor does it provide information on First Nations peoples who were not interviewed. While the data may be applicable to many First Nations, they should not be viewed as representative of every First Nation community in the province.

2 objEctivES

Periodic needs assessments help identify knowledge and science-based information that natural re-source practitioners need to make informed resource management decisions. These assessments also help identify key knowledge gaps that need to be addressed through research, improved information-sharing, or synthesis of existing knowledge. The primary objectives of this needs assessment were to:

• identify the knowledge and information needs of First Nations groups and organizations that re-lates to their participation in natural resource management in British Columbia; and

• inform the investment priorities and strategies of the BC Ministry of Forests and Range Forest Investment Account–Forest Science Program and the Provincial Forest Extension Program.

Results from this study augment previous provincial needs assessments conducted by Forrex (Gregory and Satterfield 1999; Hollstedt 2000; Michel et al. 2002; Morford and Hollstedt 2007). As with these previous needs assessments, it was important to assess the barriers to First Nations involvement in natural resource management and their use of related science, Indigenous knowledge, and other infor-mation. It was also important to establish and maintain a trust-based relationship with First Nations; therefore, a secondary objective of this project was to define existing barriers between First Nations and other groups and to re-establish a trusting relationship with those people in the First Nations organiza-tions and communities who may benefit from research and extension programs.

3 rESpondEnt SElEction and profilE

An existing contact list generated from A Guide to aboriginal organizations and services in British Columbia (BC Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation 2008) formed the basis for selecting interviewees. The existing list was updated by contacting each First Nations organization to confirm the name of the person responsible for managing natural resources. Forrex’s three Aboriginal Forestry Extension Specialists took responsibility for contacting the First Nations groups and organizations within their respective regions: the Coastal, Northern, and Southern Interior regions.

An introductory letter about Forrex, the Forest Investment Account–Forest Science Program, and the project was sent to the First Nations organizations in the Coastal and Southern Interior regions. Project team members contacted the recipients to confirm that they received the letter and that the name and contact information of the interviewee was correct. In the Northern region, initial contact with First Nations groups was made by telephoning the groups to determine if they were interested in participating in the project. If interest was expressed, the introductory letter was then sent.

4

The initial goal of the project was to secure a minimum of 10 interviews per region; however, it was very difficult to find groups that had the time and/or interest to participate in in-depth interviews. Eleven interviews were completed in the Southern Interior, seven in the Northern, and five in the Coastal regions. Since seven of the interviews were conducted with tribal councils, treaty offices, or other larger umbrella organizations, the 23 interviews provided information on 46 First Nations, or 23% of the First Nations communities in the province. Thus, the sample size was higher than the minimum recom-mended in the literature based on the number of First Nations groups and organizations in the province (DavisCase1990).Themethodsusedtoselectinterviewcandidatesforeachoftheregionsisdescribedbelow.

3.1 northern region

The interviewer used a stratified sampling design (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1992) to ensure that different groups in the Northern region were adequately represented in the sample. The selection of interviewees was designed to achieve a broad representation of linguistic groups because traditional ecological knowledge varies among these groups.

The interviewer contacted First Nations in the Athapaskan and Tsimshian language areas along Highway 16 from Haida Gwaii to Prince George and northwards. He further stratified the sampling by selecting groups with relatively large territories over groups with smaller territories. First Nations groups that had a resource manager were then selected over groups that did not. The interviewer selected resource managers by tribal association, treaty office, or tribal council according to the First Nations contact list. It was assumed that each of the selected groups would have unique information needs. The interviewer conducted interviews with representatives of seven of the groups. One of the interviewees was from a Treaty 8 tribal association that represents six First Nations communities whose territories encompass one-third of British Columbia’s land base.

The interviewer used the same sampling method when sending out the follow-up online survey. Eight people completed the survey. In an attempt to increase the sample size, the interviewer sent the survey to 25FirstNationsinnorthernBritishColumbia,regardlessoftheirlanguagegrouporiftheyhadnaturalresource managers or workgroups; however, none of the recipients completed the online survey.

3.2 coastal region

Coastal First Nations groups are diverse. There are a number of distinct language groups in the region, and groups have different forest management needs and capacity. Some communities do not manage forestsatallbecausetheyaretraditionallymarinebased.Duetothisdiversity,theinterviewerusedastratified sampling design to select First Nations on the contact list who were from different language groups and had different forest management needs and capacity. This allowed her to achieve a sample of remote and more accessible groups, as well as groups from a broad geographic area.

The interviewer emailed introductory letters to 10 groups, and then followed up with a phone call. Most of the bands did not read the letter. Arranging a time to conduct the interviews was also challeng-ing because many people were extremely busy and were dealing with their fiscal year end. As a result, only five interviews were conducted.

3.3 Southern interior region

The interviewer tried to interview as many First Nations as possible in the Southern Interior region. Instead of using a stratified sample, she randomly picked names from the First Nations contact list. This approach is known in the social sciences as non-probability or convenience sampling (Frankfort-Nach-

5

mias and Nachmias 1992). Though there is no way of estimating the representativeness of the sample, this approach achieved the maximum number of interviews possible within the allotted time frame.

Theinterviewerchoseapproximately35FirstNationsbandsandallianceslocatedintheregion.Sheemailed the introductory letter and a list of sample interview questions (Appendix 1) to the selected rep-resentatives, and then randomly contacted them by phone. Wherever possible, she tried to conduct the interviews in person, but was able to do so with only two of 11 respondents. The interviewer also sent out the follow-up online survey to all the interviewees, but only three completed the survey.

3.4 profiles of first nations interviewed

Information about the interviewees and the communities they represented is important for placing the responses in context and for making comparisons among people and communities. However, the names and locations of the people interviewed are not provided in this report for confidentiality reasons. To provide as much context as possible while protecting anonymity, the population, number of reserves, and total size of reserves of the people interviewed were categorized as shown in Table 1.

Most of the people interviewed (17 of 23) were from First Nations bands. The other six worked for First Nations umbrella organizations such as tribal councils, treaty offices, and other First Nations as-sociations. Five of these six were located in the Northern region (Table 1). The size of the reserves and full-time employment from NRM related jobs in the First Nations who were interviewed will be dis-cussed below as these provide the contextual information that is most relevant to this needs assessment as compared to the other profile categories in Table 1.

Threeofthe23FirstNationsinterviewedhadreserveswithareasof101–500ha,alllocatedintheCoastalregion.Threereserveshadareasof501–1000ha,sevenhadareasof1001–5000ha,fivehadareasof5001–10,000ha,andfourhadareasgreaterthan10,000ha.Thesizeofonereservewasunknown(Table 1).

Fifteen of the First Nations interviewed employed less than 10 people full-time in NRM-related jobs. Groupnumber5statedthatonepersonwasemployedfull-timeinNRM,butoneotherpersonworkedfor an outside forestry company, and four others worked for an oil and gas pipeline company. Three First Nationsemployedbetween10and15peoplefull-time.Groupnumber13didnotdistinguishclearlybe-tweenfull-timeandseasonalemployees.However,theydidstatethatmostofthe15–20employeeswereseasonal.OneintervieweereportedthattheirFirstNationsemployedmorethan75peoplefull-timeinNRM-relatedjobs.TheareaofthereserveofthisFirstNationwasbetween1001and5000ha.Threeofthe interviewees did not provide information on full-time employment from NRM.

Many of the First Nations resource managers mentioned that they were overwhelmed by the number of referrals that their organization, department, or band had to deal with.

6

4 mEthodS

The research was conducted using a series of telephone or in-person interviews followed by an online survey.

4.1 interview methodology

An Interview Guide was prepared to assist the interviewers (Appendix 2). The questions in the guide were developed by the project team and took into consideration the goals of the project and the expected capacity of First Nations to provide information. Michel et al.’s (2002) needs assessment for First Nations in the Southern Interior was also used to develop lists of potential barriers and needs regarding First Nations participation in NRM. The lists allowed interviewers to check off or highlight a response as the interviewee spoke rather than having to record each answer.

tABLe 1 First Nations profiles.

Registered Total size No. of No. of Organization Population population No. of of reserves full-time seasonal ID type Region on reserve on reserve reserves (ha) NRM jobsa NRM jobs

1 Umbrellab North 1001+ 1001+ 21–30 5001–10,000 5 5–102 Umbrella North 1001+ 1001+ 31–40 1001–5000 3 Umbrella North 1001+ 1001+ 51+ 5001–10,000 124 Umbrella North 1001+ 1001+ 41–50 10,000+ 5 Band North 101–250 0–100 0–10 501–1000 16 Band North Unknown Unknown 11–20 1001–5000 75–1057 Umbrella North 501–1000 501–1000 0–10 1001–5000 5–6 50–608 Band Interior 1001+ 1001+ 31–40 10,000+ 6 9 Band Interior 251–500 251–500 0–10 1001–5000 8 1810 Band Interior 101–250 0–100 0–10 501–1000 1 Many11 Band Interior Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 212 Band Interior 251–500 101–250 0–10 1001–5000 213 Band Interior 1001+ 501–1000 0–10 10,000+ 15–2014 Band Interior 501–1000 0–100 0–10 10,000+ 215 Band Interior 101–250 101–250 0–10 5001–10,000 1216 Band Interior 101–250 101–250 0–10 5001–10,000 117 Band Interior 0–100 0–100 0–10 1001–5000 18 Band Interior 251–500 251–500 0–10 1001–5000 1219 Band Coast 0–100 0–100 0–10 101–500 020 Band Coast 501–1000 501–1000 0–10 101–500 221 Band Coast 0–100 0–100 0–10 501–1000 422 Band Coast 0–100 0–100 11–20 101–500 123 Umbrella Coast 1000+ 1000+ 21–30 5001–10,000 7

a NRM jobs refers to jobs dependent on natural resource management (NRM) such as forestry, mining, fishery, oil and gas.b Umbrellaorganizationtypesincludetribalcouncils,treatyoffices,andotherFirstNationsassociations.

7

The Interview Guide was based on six open-ended questions related to six topics:

1. Background information about NRM2. Participation and jobs in NRM3. Access and knowledge needs regarding SFM and EBM4. UseofIndigenousknowledge5. NRMtechnologyneeds6. NRM education and training

A series of sub-questions or speaking prompts was prepared for each topic. Some of the sub-questions were relatively specific. For example, some asked interviewees to rank attributes on numeric scales. Other questions were open-ended and were asked as a part of a free-flowing conversation.

Each Aboriginal Forestry Extension Specialist asked the questions in their own way. Each respondent answered anywhere from two to all six of the questions depending on how much time they had and which questions were a priority for them. Almost all of the respondents in the Southern Interior region provided an answer for all of the questions, with the exception of Question 3 on SFM/EBM, which was the least comprehensively answered question in all regions.

Two of the extension specialists generally followed the Interview Guide. They also wrote or typed notes, or recorded responses when there was no pre-determined response provided. The third extension specialist did not use the pre-determined responses in the Interview Guide, but chose to type or write what the interviewee said. The differences in these approaches added to the complexity of categorizing the data collected.

4.2 online Survey methodology

An online survey was designed to collect specific data on First Nations information needs related to sustainable forest management and ecosystem-based management (Appendix 3). The survey consisted of seven questions, and respondents were informed that it would take about 10 minutes to complete. The web-based survey program Zoomerang (www.zoomerang.com) was used to conduct the survey. Most of the people interviewed in the Northern and the Southern Interior regions were invited by their region’s AboriginalForestryExtensionSpecialisttoparticipateinthesurvey.Duetotechnicalandlogisticaldiffi-culties, the online survey could not be sent to people interviewed in the Coastal region. In total, 11 people completed the online survey: eight from the Northern and three from the Southern Interior regions. Thissamplerepresentedabout5%ofthe203FirstNationsintheprovince;however,notallofthose203groups manage natural resources. Getting a larger sample size was a challenge because First Nations rep-resentativestendtoprefertotalkaboutissuesratherthancompleteasurvey.Despitethesmallsamplesize, the survey data and the interview data (which covered 23% of the First Nations in the province) provide a useful indicator of First Nations information needs on topics related to SFM and EBM.

5 intErviEw rESultS

Responses to each of the interview questions were consolidated for all three regions. This process was straightforward for the portion of the interview in which responses were recorded with checks or highlights, but it was considerably more complex for written or typed responses, which needed to be converted to the pre-determined response choices. In addition, responses to one question were sometimes more relevant to another. In these cases, it was determined that it was better to “move” the information to the applicable question and analyze it accordingly rather than risk losing it.

8

Several sub-questions were used to obtain specific information on topics related to the six main inter-view questions. The responses to these sub-questions were grouped into “response categories” for easier interpretation.

The results presented summarize the responses provided in the 23 interviews.

5.1 background information on how first nations manage natural resources

This topic was added to the interview at the request of one of the Aboriginal Forestry Extension Spe-cialists who was interested in learning more about how the First Nations in his region manage natural resources. This provided context for the information gathered for this needs assessment. It also helped the extension specialist learn more about the people to whom he would be providing extension services.

5.1.1 Who Manages Natural Resources?

Interviewees were asked who manages natural resources in their First Nation. Most (63%) of the in-terviewees who responded said they had a First Nations Natural Resource (or Lands) Manager in their community or organization (Figure 1). However, this number was strongly influenced by the Southern Interiorregion,whichaccountedfor75%ofthetotalresponsesinthiscategory.Threeoftherespondentssaid the Chief or Band Council was responsible for managing natural resources, while another three said they hired consultants to manage natural resources in their territory.

First Nations Resource/Lands Manager(including non-FN employees)

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

Number of responses

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Band Manager

Tribal Council

Natural Resource Council

Outside resource manager/consultant

Chief and/or Band Council members

FIguRe 1 Who manages natural resources?

5.1.2 Approaches to Natural Resource Management

Interviewees were asked about the approach their First Nations group takes towards NRM. They were given the following choices: industrial, community-based, traditional, elected village council, hereditary governance system, or a combination of these approaches. The top three approaches identified were community-based or woodlots, traditional management, and industrial/commercial (Figure 2). Eight-six percent of the respondents who used a woodlot or community-based approach were from the Southern Interior region. Four respondents said they used a sustainable forest management and one said they used an ecosystem-based management approach. This is evidence that SFM or EBM approaches are being

9

5.1.3 Types of Agreements or Licences

Interviewees were asked about the types of agreements and licences their First Nations have with the Province. The most common types were Resource Management Agreements, Forest Licences, woodlots, and Forest and Range Agreements (Figure 3).

adopted by First Nations. Three respondents said they used a combination of approaches, and one said that they were most concerned about restoration when managing natural resources.

FIguRe 2 Approaches to natural resource management.

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

0

Number of responses

2 4 6 8

EBM

Restoration

Combination of approaches

SFM

Industrial/Commercial

Traditional

Community-based/Woodlot

FIguRe 3 Types of agreements/licences with the Province.

Resource Management Agreement

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

0

Number of responses

2 4 6 8 10

Community Forest

Master Comprehensive Agreement

Public Lands License

Treaty-related Measure/Interim Measure

Other (names and agreementsare confidential)

Forest and Range Agreement

Woodlot

Forest License

10

5.2 participation and jobs in natural resource management

Most of the sub-questions related to First Nations participation in managing natural resources and em-ployment levels in NRM had a medium to fairly high response rate.

5.2.1 Types of Natural Resource Management Participation

Interviewees were asked about the different types of NRM-related activities in which their group partici-pated. This sub-question received a low response rate compared to other sub-questions under this topic. Responses were fairly evenly distributed among hunting and fishing, logging, and non-timber forest resources.Tworespondentssaidtheirgroupparticipatedinrun-of-the-riverprojects(Figure5).

FIguRe 4 Harvesting and domestic use of trees.

5.1.4 Harvesting Trees for Domestic Use

Interviewees were asked if their First Nation harvested trees for domestic use. Eight groups did; another eight did not. Of those who harvested trees for domestic use, most used the wood for homes, fencing, trapping, and firewood. One group harvested trees for ceremonial use (Figure 4).

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

0

Number of responses

2 4 6 8

None

None now, but did in past

Yes – firewood

Yes – Log homes/housing/trapping/fencing

Yes – art/ceremonial

Yes – other

11

5.2.2 Level of Participation with Government and Industry

Interviewees were asked to rank their group’s level of participation with governments and industry on NRM-related decisions. Responses were ranked on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 referred to no participation and 10 was considered as very high participation and collaboration in NRM activities. If respondents felt their group’s level of participation varied with the type of NRM activity, they could select “variable” as an alternative to ranking their group’s participation. Forty-eight percent of respondents provided a ranking. The Northern region provided the highest response level; First Nations in the Southern Interior did not respond at all. Overall, First Nations rated their involvement with governments as 4.7 out of 10, and with industry as 4.4 out of 10 (Figure 6).

FIguRe 5 Types of natural resource management participation.

Hunting and fishing

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

0

Number of responses

2 4 6

Logging

NTFP resources

Resource inventories

Mining

Land use planning

Conservation efforts

Trail building

Run-of-the-river projects

FIguRe 6 Levels of participation with government and industry.

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

0

Number of responses

2 4 6

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high

variable

–

–

–

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high

variable

–

–

–

Government

Industry

12

5.2.4 Barriers to Participating in Natural Resource Management

Interviewees were asked what barriers prevent their group from fully participating in NRM. This sub-question identified the highest number of barriers to participation (70). Lack of funding was the greatest barrier to participation (Table 2). Respondents also said that the lack of First Nations capacity and use of Indigenous knowledge, and inadequate working relationships with governments were fairly significant barriers. Lack of science-based information was also identified as a barrier, emphasizing the need for greater extension with First Nations.

figure 7 Changes in participation over time.

5.2.3 Changes in Participation over Time

Interviewees were asked if their group’s level of participation in NRM changed over the years, and if so, if it had improved, stayed the same, or declined. Thirty-nine percent said their group’s participation in NRM had increased over time (Figure 7). This trend was particularly noticeable in the Northern region. In addition, six respondents said they would like their group’s level of participation to increase, while two said they chose not to engage in NRM because they did not agree with the current process. No re-spondents reported a decrease in participation.

Decreased

Stayed the same

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

0

Number of responses

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Increased

Want to participate more

Choose not to engage

table 2 Barriers to participating in natural resource management (3 or more responses).

Barrier Number of responses

Lack of funding/short-term funding/funding restrictions 10 Lack of First Nations capacity 7 Inadequate working/non-collaborative relationships with governments 7 Lack of use of Indigenous knowledge 6 Lack of science-based information 6 Lack of adequate First Nations staff/high turnover 4 Lack of First Nations education and training 4 Referral process flawed/lack of time to address referrals 3 Inadequate/non-collaborative working relationship with industry 3

13

figure 8 Needs for participating in natural resource management.

5.2.5 Needs for Participating in Natural Resource Management

Interviewees were asked what information they needed to be more involved in NRM. Access to re-search and digital data was identified by most respondents (Figure 8). This again emphasizes the need for greater extension with First Nations. Access to funding was the next most important need related to partcipation in NRM. It was also identifed previously as the most significant barrier to participation.

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

0

Number of responses

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Use/collection of Indigenous knowledge

Access to research, studies,assessments, and digital data

Improve government decision-making process

Comprehensive referral process

Funding/access to funding

First Nations staffing/capacity/education/training

Other

5.3 Access and Knowledge Needs Regarding Sustainable Forest Management and Ecosystem-based Management

In the Interview Guide, sustainable forest management (SFM) was described as including forest eco-systems, water, soils, cultural values, trees and smaller plants, non-timber forest resources, animals and their habitats, forest operations, industry, and business trends. Ecosystem-based management (EBM) was described as taking a holistic approach to natural resource management by combining the human, biological, and physical dimensions of natural resource management to ensure the sustainability of all resources. Despite providing these descriptions, the level of detail needed to assess First Nations infor-mation needs regarding SFM or EBM was not achieved because many respondents said they did not have enough information about or knowledge of SFM or EBM to adequately answer the question or sub-questions for this topic. Thus, a follow-up online survey was sent out to collect more detailed infor-mation about First Nations needs related to SFM and EBM. The interview responses to the sub-questions (which were more general than those in the online survey) are presented below. The results of the online survey are discussed later in this report.

5.3.1 Current Access to Sustainable Forest Management or Ecosystem-based Management Information

Interviewees were asked about the kind of access they currently have to science-based SFM or EBM data or research. Seven respondents answered this sub-question. Most respondents were from the Northern region; no responses were received from the Southern Interior region. Answers were ranked from 1 to 10, where 1 meant that respondents did not receive or have access to any information on SFM or EBM, and 10 meant that they received or had adequate information on those topics. Access to government

14

information on SFM or EBM received the highest average score: 6.4. Access to SFM or EBM information fromotheragenciesrangedfromaveragescoresof4.4to5.3(Figure9).

FIguRe 9 Access to sustainable forest management and ecosystem-based management information.

Info

rmat

ion

typ

es

0

Number of responses

2 4 6

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

Not ranked, but access indicated

–

–

–

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

Not ranked, but access indicated

–

–

–

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

Not ranked, but access indicated

–

–

–

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

Not ranked, but access indicated

–

–

–

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

Not ranked, but access indicated

–

–

–

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

Not ranked, but access indicated

–

–

–

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

Not ranked, but access indicated

–

–

–

Science-based

Government

Industry

Post-secondary

Other First Nations

NGO

Other expert research

5.3.2 Barriers to Participating in Sustainable Forest Management or Ecosystem-based Management

Interviewees were asked to identify barriers that prevent their group from participating fully in SFM or EBM. Lack of funding, lack of First Nations capacity, and lack of science-based information were iden-tified as the top three barriers (Table 3). Barriers similar to these were identified in Question 2, which related to participation of First Nations in natural resource management.

15

tABLe 3 Barriers to participating in sustainable forest management or ecosystem-based management (3 or more responses).

Barrier Number of responses

Lackoffunding/short-termfunding/fundingrestrictions 5Lackofcapacity 5Lack of science-based information 4 Lack of education and training 3 Lack of First Nations staff 3

5.3.3 Needs for Participating in Sustainable Forest Management or Ecosystem-based Management

Interviewees were asked what information their group needs to participate fully in SFM or EBM. The total number of responses was 24. More research on Indigenous land use and access to science-based information were the only two needs that each received more than two responses (Table 4). Specific information needs related to SFM or EBM were more clearly identified in the online survey.

tABLe 4 Needs for participating in sustainable forest management or ecosystem-based management (2 or more responses).

Need Number of responses

More research on Indigenous land use 3Access to science-based information 3Access to information on river restoration 2

5.3.4 Current Participation in Sustainable Forest Management and Ecosystem-based Management

Interviewees were asked about First Nations participation in SFM and EBM. Responses were varied and no trend could be identified. Interviewees were also encouraged to provide general comments about EBM and SFM. The following are some highlights from those responses:

many were interested in SFM and EBM approaches•the barrier to participation in SFM and EBM is lack of funding•First Nations require training in SFM and EBM approaches•SFM and EBM are more suited to area-based tenures•First Nations are interested in the use of Indigenous knowledge in EBM and SFM•EBM or SFM approaches reinforce being stewards of the land•SFM and EBM approaches are included in land-use planning•F• orrex LINK articles have been a source of SFM and EBM information

16

5.4 use of indigenous knowledge in natural resource management

Three of the sub-questions under this topic received low response levels. These sub-questions were ex-pected to provide information on:

• sharingofIndigenousknowledge;• whereFirstNationshavebeenabletoadequatelysupplyIndigenousknowledgetonaturalresource

management projects; and• areaswhereFirstNationssaidForrex’s assistance would be helpful in sharing Indigenous knowl-

edge.

The reluctance on the part of many First Nations to discuss issues around Indigenous knowledge could account for some of the low response rate. Some of the responses to selected sub-questions are discussed below.

5.4.1 Purpose for Which Indigenous Knowledge Was Collected

Interviewees were asked about the purpose for which they collected or recorded NRM-related Indig-enous knowledge. This sub-question received a higher response rate than other sub-questions under this topic. Indigenous knowledge was collected or recorded most often for traditional-use studies or for preservingtraditionalecologicalknowledge(Table5).Thiswasfollowedbythegatheringofknowledgefor GIS mapping, other Aboriginal land-use studies, treaty studies, and the First Nations library/infor-mation resource centre.

tABLe 5 Purpose for which Indigenous knowledge was collected.

Type Number of responses

Traditional-use studies/traditional ecological knowledge 6 GIS mapping 4 Other Aboriginal land-use studies 3 Treaty studies 3Library/information resource centre 3

5.4.2 Examples of Use of Indigenous Knowledge

Interviewees were asked if they had an example of a specific NRM-related decision or activity where they had an adequate opportunity to include Indigenous knowledge in the process, and if so, what type of information they provided. Respondents said they used Indigenous knowledge in the protection of cultural heritage resources, in land-use and forestry planning, and in hunting and fishing (Table 6). One respondent said they would like to use Indigenous knowledge for stream restoration. This information provides insight into where Indigenous knowledge is being used or can be used in NRM.

17

tABLe 6 Examples of use of Indigenous knowledge in natural resource management.

Example Number of responses

Protection of cultural heritage sites 2 Planning forestry activities 1 Land-use conservation 1 Management plans 1 Logging 1 Hunting and fishing 1 Land-use decision tool such as GIS 1 Protection of clam beds 1 Would like to use Indigenous knowledge for stream restoration 1

5.4.3 Extension Support for Using Indigenous Knowledge

This sub-question asked respondents to select areas in which Forrex, as an extension provider, could support First Nations in their use of Indigenous knowledge. Most said they would like to have informa-tion on how other First Nations are using Indigenous knowledge in NRM (Table 7).

tABLe 7 Extension support for using Indigenous knowledge (all responses).

Areas Number of responses

Provide information on what other First Nations are doing 3 Facilitate information-sharing with post-secondary institutions 2 Provide information on training opportunities 1 Provide information on funding opportunities 1 Add information to Forrex website on all above categories, 1plus studies and court cases Donotneedassistanceatthistime 1

5.4.4 Barriers to and Needs for Using Indigenous Knowledge

Interviewees were asked to identify the barriers they have encountered in using Indigenous knowledge in NRM, and what they need most to improve their ability to use this knowledge in NRM. The number of responses regarding barriers to applying Indigenous knowledge in NRM (32) was more than double the number regarding needs for using this knowledge (14). This indicates that most respondents felt that barriers to using Indigenous knowledge were more of a hurdle than needs for using that knowledge. This reinforces the fact that Indigenous knowledge exists locally with First Nations, and that it would be more widely incorporated into NRM activities if barriers to its use were removed. The biggest barriers to using Indigenous knowledge were lack of funding and capacity, failure to give Indigenous knowledge the same importance as western science, and inadequate collection and preservation of Indigenous knowledge (Table 8). Most respondents identified the need for education and training on how to incorporate Indig-enous knowledge into NRM.

18

tABLe 8 Barriers to and needs for using Indigenous knowledge (3 or more responses).

Barrier Number of responses

Lack of funding/short-term funding/funding restrictions 6 Indigenous knowledge not respected/not given same importance as 4science-based information Inadequate Indigenous knowledge collected 4 Lack of First Nations staff/capacity to collect Indigenous knowledge 4 Elders passing before information can be collected 3 Need

Improveeducation/trainingforcollectingIndigenousknowledgeand 5incorporating it into natural resource management

5.5 natural resource management technology needs

Sub-questions under this topic were used to identify First Nations access to and use of resource manage-ment technology (such as GIS, computer hardware and software, and data management), and to identify what their needs were with regard to this technology.

5.5.1 Technology Used in Natural Resource Management

Respondents were asked about the types of technology they use to manage natural resources in their territory (e.g., hardware, software, GIS, and data management). The response rate to this question was poor in all regions, especially in the Southern Interior. Five respondents said they had the standard office hardware, software, and equipment. Three respondents, all from the Northern region, said that they used GIS. Two said they relied on other First Nations for technical services.

5.5.2 Natural Resource Management Technology—Strengths and Challenges

Interviewees were asked about their familiarity with and knowledge of (i.e., strengths) the use of NRM-related technology like GIS, and what challenges they face in using it. GIS was listed as a strength by 43% of the respondents, but as a challenge by 22% (Table 9). One of the technology strengths listed by three respondents (one in each region) was referral mapping and tracking software. A challenge listed by four respondents was that they had up-to-date hardware and software, but no staff trained to use it properly. One group located in a very remote location in the Coastal region stated that their access to an internet server was a challenge.

19

tABLe 9 Natural resource management technology—strengths and challenges (2 or more responses).

Technology strengths Number of responses

GIS 8 Integrative referral mapping/referral tracking software 3 Datamanagement 2

Technology challenges

GIS 5Have the hardware and software, but no one on staff trained to use it/no one 4on staff or in band with adequate technological education and training Datamanagement 2Software 2

5.5.3 Barriers to and Needs for Using Technology in Natural Resource Management

Interviewees were asked to identify the barriers that limit their ability to access and use technology that would improve their participation in NRM. They were also asked to identify resources or information they would need to improve the application of technology in NRM. Two barriers received high scores: lack of funding/short-term funding/funding restrictions and inadequate First Nations staffing (Table 10). Only one need received more than one response: training/capacity building for community members, including training in GIS. This emphasizes the challenge First Nations face regarding lack of training in technology use. This was also identified in the previous section.

tABLe 10 Barriers to and needs for using technology in natural resource management (3 or more responses).

Barrier Number of responses

Inadequate First Nations staffing 8 Lack of funding/short-term funding/funding restrictions 7 Lack of First Nations capacity 4 Old/inadequate hardware 3 Need

Training/capacity building for community members, including training in GIS 6

5.6 Education and training in natural resource management

Sub-questions under this topic asked about First Nations access to education, training, and information sources (such as reading materials, research data, and websites), and First Nations priorities for educa-tion and training related to NRM.

20

5.6.1 Access to Education and Training

Interviewees were asked to rank their access to types of education and training on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 was no access and 10 was very good access. Thirty-five percent of respondents (all in the Coastal and Northern regions) provided rankings, which averaged from 4.6 (science-based natural resource education and training) to 6.0 (education and training in Indigenous language and culture) (Figure 10). All respondents ranked access to science-based natural resource education and training either low or medium. This indicates that there is a marked need for science-based education, training, and extension in NRM. Many said there were few training and educational opportunities at the band level, and educa-tional facilities were often located far away.

FIguRe 10 Access to education and training in natural resource management.

Educ

atio

n a

nd

tra

inin

g c

ateg

ori

es

0

Number of responses

2 4 6

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

–

–

–

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

–

–

–

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

–

–

–

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

–

–

–

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

–

–

–

1 3 (low)

4 7 (med)

8 10 (high)

–

–

–

Post secondary

Indigenous knowledgecollection

Science-basednatural resources

Written materials,research, and websites

Entrepreneurial andself-employment start-up

Indigenous languageand culture

5.6.2 Barriers to and Needs for Education and Training

Interviewees were asked to identify barriers that limit their First Nation’s ability to access training and education related to NRM. They were also asked to identify information and resources they would need to improve their access to NRM-related training and education. Several barriers to and needs for edu-cation and training in NRM received three or more responses (Table 11). Cost of education, facilities located too far away, lack of Aboriginal trainers or role models, and inadequate NRM educational oppor-tunities at the band level were some of the barriers identified. The barrier “low high school completion rate” was selected only by respondents from the Coastal region. Among the needs selected were more Aboriginal alternative education opportunities, improved sharing of elders’ knowledge, and increased incentives for completing education.

21

tABLe 11 Barriers to and needs for education and training in natural resource management (3 or more responses).

Barrier Number of responses

Cost of education/inadequate education funding 4 Inadequate access to educational facilities/facilities too far away 4 Lack of Aboriginal trainers/role models 4 Low high school completion rate 4 Indigenous knowledge not taught in the public school system 3 Inadequate natural resource management educational opportunities at band level 3

Need

More Aboriginal education alternatives 4 Improve utilization of/sharing of elders’ knowledge and skills 3 Increase incentives for education/high school graduation 3

Respondents identified several priorities for NRM education and training: certification in silviculture

surveys; training as timber evaluation cruisers, licensed scalers, danger tree assessors, and field GPS operators; and education in ecosystem-based management and traditional gathering.

5.7 analysis of identified barriers and needs in natural resource management

The barriers and needs respondents identified in all interview questions were analyzed to determine the most important barriers and information needs related to First Nations participation in NRM. Barriers and needs were grouped in two ways:

1. by interview questions (i.e., topics), and2. by response categories.

5.7.1 Barriers and Needs by Topics

The question-by-question analysis involved adding the number of barriers and needs for each of Ques-tions 2 through 6. The numbers of barriers recorded, in descending order, were:

Participation and jobs in NRM (Question 2) 70 1. NRM education and training (Question 6) 40 2. Access and knowledge needs regarding SFM and EBM (Question 3) 37 3. NRMtechnology(Question5) 334. UseofIndigenousknowledge(Question4) 325.

These responses could indicate that the interviewees felt that First Nations experience the greatest number of barriers with regards to their participation and jobs in NRM. However, this question may have received the most responses because it was the first one that asked interviewees to identify barriers. Subsequent questions could have been viewed as repetitive.

22

The number of needs recorded for Questions 2 though 6, in descending order, were:

NRM education and training (Question 6) 33 1. Participation and jobs in NRM (Question 2) 27 2. Access and knowledge needs around SFM and EBM (Question 3) 24 3. NRMtechnology(Question5) 164. UseofIndigenousknowledge(Question4) 145.

First Nations placed the most emphasis on needs related to education and training in NRM, followed closely by participation and jobs in NRM.

For both barriers and needs, access and knowledge needs regarding SFM and EBM ranked third, fol-lowed by resource management technology, and use of Indigenous knowledge. The fact that Indigenous knowledge ranked fifth in both cases could be interpreted as First Nations having the fewest barriers and needs to using Indigenous knowledge in NRM. However, this somewhat counter-intuitive finding could be influenced by the fact that the question on Indigenous knowledge occurred later in the interview list. Another possible explanation for this result is provided at the beginning of the next section.

5.7.2 Barriers and Needs by Response Categories

The barriers and needs in response categories for Questions 2 through 6 were totalled and ranked.

FIguRe 11 Barriers and needs by response categories.

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

0

Number of responses

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

First Nations staffing levels/capacity/education/training

Use/collection of Indigenous knowledge

Access to research, studies,assessments, digital data

Funding

Other

Improve work/relationshipswith governments

Improve government land use/NRM decision-making process

Improve work/relationshipswith industry

Comprehensive referral process

Barrier

Need

23

First Nations capacity, education, and training ranked as the biggest barrier and the highest need (Fig-ure 11). In this analysis, the use and/or collection of Indigenous knowledge ranked second as a barrier and fourth as a need. This contrasts with the results of the question-by-question analysis, which sug-gest that the use of Indigenous knowledge had the fewest barriers and needs. As noted previously, First Nations are often reluctant to talk about Indigenous knowledge, so it may be that when asked a direct question (as in Question 4), they were reluctant to provide responses. However, when respondents were asked more indirect questions about barriers or needs, they were more comfortable talking about Indig-enous knowledge.

Funding ranked third as a barrier, but sixth as a need. This is surprising given the chronic level of underfunding in many, if not most, First Nations communities. It may be that First Nations do not rank funding for natural resource management as high as the need for funding of social-related matters or community economic development. Working with governments (including lack of collaboration and lack of information-sharing) ranked fifth as a barrier, but improving collaboration and relationships with government was identified as a need by only three respondents. This may indicate that relationships between governments and First Nations have improved, or it could be an acknowledgement that govern-ments are making more of an effort to work collaboratively with First Nations than they did in the past.

Issues around collaboration with industry ranked second to last as both barriers and needs, and issues around the government referral process ranked last for both. While the ranking for referrals may appear to contradict the message from First Nations that the referral process is overwhelming and time con-suming, it may be that First Nations do not associate natural resource management with referrals.

6 onlinE SurvEy rESultS

The online survey (Appendix 3) was conducted after the interviews were completed to obtain specific information about sustainable forest management and ecosystem-based management. Participants were asked at the beginning of the survey if their First Nation had any science-based information needs relat-ed to SFM or EBM. SFM was described as including forest ecosystems, water, soils, cultural values, trees and smaller plants, non-timber forest resources, animals and their habitats, forest operations, industry, and business trends. EBM was described as taking a holistic approach to natural resource management by combining the human, biological, and physical dimensions of natural resource management to ensure the sustainability of all resources.

Nearly all respondents said they needed information on SFM or EBM. All respondents from the Southern Interior regions said they required information about SFM or EBM. Only one person from the Northern region said their First Nation did not require any information on SFM.

Following the initial questions about the need for information related to SFM or EBM, respondents were asked about their information needs in five categories:

EBM and conservation biology;1. Social, economic and cultural; 2. Watershed management;3. Forest operations and planning; and4. Other issues related to forest management. 5.

For each category, they were provided with a list of topics to choose what they felt were the highest priority needs for their First Nations. They could choose one or more topics. Their choices regarding information needs for the five categories are presented in the following sections.

24

FIguRe 12 Ecosystem-based management and biodiversity information needs.

Because there were only three respondents from the Southern Interior, it was difficult to identify regional differences in responses; therefore, the following sections present the combined responses from the Northern and Southern Interior regions. No responses were received from the Coastal region.

6.1 Ecosystem-based management and conservation biology information needs

Respondents were given a list of eight topics related to biodiversity and were asked to select the topics on which they needed information. More than half of the respondents said they needed information on all of the topics (Figure 12). All respondents needed information on inventories for ecological values and on using those inventories to monitor and evaluate biodiversity. A large number of respondents (91%) were interested in information about ecological restoration. The responses indicate that information about maintaining and enhancing biodiversity is a high priority for First Nations. In addition to the eight topics, there were three “write-in” topics. One response mentioned information needs on the impacts of cattle and other ungulates. The respondent did not describe the impacts, but we assume they could mean the impacts of cattle and ungulates on wildlife and biodiversity. Another respondent stated a need for operational data. Though not directly related to information needs, two “write-in” responses mentioned ensuring the ability to exercise Aboriginal rights.

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

0

Percentage of respondents (n=11)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Improved inventories forecological values

Assessing, managing, monitoring,and evaluating biodiversity

Ecological restoration-techniques,requirements

Natural disturbance patterns and implicationsfor forest management and restoration

Impacts of range managementon biodiversity

Habitat requirements for species at risk

Invasive species

Contribution of protected areas and non-harvestableland base to maintenance of biodiversity

Other responses

6.2 Social, Economic, and cultural information needs

Respondents were given a list of nine topics related to social, economic, and cultural information needs and were asked to select the topics on which they needed information. More than 90% of respondents were interested in information on incorporating Indigenous knowledge into management (Figure 13). A similar proportion wanted information on incorporating social, economic, and cultural indicators into planning and operations. More than half of the respondents wanted information on non-timber valua-tion, monitoring for the conservation of cultural heritage resources, and forest certification. A smaller

25

FIguRe 13 Social, economic, and cultural information needs.

proportion was interested in information on community forestry, identifying public values and attitudes, and public participatory processes.

0

Percentage of respondents (n=11)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Incorporation of Indigenous and experientialknowledge in management

Incorporating social, economic, and culturalindicators into planning, operations, and policy

Valuing non-timber economic values for inclusionin operations, planning, and policy

Monitoring systems for conservation ofcultural heritage resources

Certification

Community forestry

Social trends and values

Public attitudes, values, and preferences

Public participation processes

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

6.3 watershed management information needs

Respondents were given a list of eight topics related to watershed management and were asked to select the topics on which they need information. All respondents said they needed information on riparian management (Figure 14). More than 70% of respondents wanted information on hydrologic recovery and silviculture, impacts of forest management on water quality and quantity, hillslope geomorphol-ogy and soils, and stream geomorphology. More than half were interested in information on forest engineering, and range management, pest, and fire impacts on water quality and quantity. Impacts of disturbances, both human and natural, on water quality and quantity appeared to be a high priority information need for most respondents. One “write-in” response mentioned the need for information on wildlife interface issues.

26

6.4 forest operations and planning information needs

Respondents were given a list of 11 topics related to forest operations and planning, and were asked to select the topics on which they needed information. More than 80% of respondents wanted information onnon-timberforestproductsandplanningforsustainableforestmanagement(Figure15).Thissug-gests that most respondents are very interested in information on managing forests for multiple values, which is similar to First Nations traditional management practices. More than 60% of respondents were interested in information on monitoring systems, vegetation management, and silvicultural options. More than half were interested in information on utilization, soil productivity and conservation, pest management, and growth and yield predictions. More than 40% of respondents wanted information on impacts of large-scale harvesting and harvesting technologies. One “write-in” response expressed inter-est in First Nations silvicultural tenures.

0

Percentage of respondents (n=11)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Riparian management

Hydrologic recovery and silviculture systems

Forest management impacts on waterquality and quantity

Hillslope geomorphology and soils

Stream geomorphology

Forest engineering (e.g., roads andstream crossings)

Range management impacts onwater quality and quantity

Pest and fire impacts on water qualityand quantity

Other response – wildfire interface issues

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

FIguRe 14 Watershed management information needs.

27

FIguRe 15 Forest operations and planning information needs.

6.5 other forest management information needs

Respondents were given a list of four topics related to forest management in British Columbia that were not covered in the earlier questions:

Trade-offs between social, economic, and ecological indicators; 1. Climate change impacts on forests, water and communities; 2. Mountain Pine Beetle impacts; and 3. Extension methods.4.

They were asked to select the topic(s) on which they needed information. They were also given the choice to write-in other areas that were not covered in these four areas or earlier questions.

More than 80% of respondents wanted information on climate change impacts and trade-offs between social, economic, and ecological indicators (Figure 16). About 40% of respondents said they needed information on extension methods and impacts of the mountain pine beetle. There were two “write-in” topics: one was on bioenergy and tenure liability, the second was on revenue and funding sources for First Nations.

0

Percentage of respondents (n=11)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

Non-timber forest products

Sustainable forest managementplanning

Monitoring procedures

Vegetation management

Silviculture options

Utilization

Soil productivity and conservation

Pest management

Growth and yield predictions

Impacts of scale salvage

Harvesting technologies

Other response – First Nationsilviculture tenures

28

FIguRe 16 Other forest management information needs.

7 diScuSSion

7.1 trends in the interview responses

The information collected during the 23 interviews showed a number of trends in some areas, and al-lowed regional variations in responses to be identified. The following observations were made:

• Regionalvariationsininterviewresponsesmaybeduepartlytotheemergenceofminingasthemain resource sector in some areas of the province. In other parts of the province, forestry contin-ues to dominate the resource sector. On the coast, marine rather than land-based natural resource management is most common.

• Theinterviewmethodusedaffectedwhichquestionsreceivedthemostresponses.Somequestionsand sub-questions were answered more frequently than others. Generally, questions that asked people for specific numbers or percentages were answered less frequently.

• Thenumberofresponsesregardingbarriers(212)inQuestions2though6wasalmostdoublethenumber of responses about needs (112). This may indicate that reducing barriers to participation in NRM is as important, if not more important than meeting information needs.

7.2 comparison of results with previous Studies

The results of this study build on those of previous needs assessments conducted by Forrex (Gregory and Satterfield 1999; Hollstedt 2000; Michel et al. 2002; Morford and Hollstedt 2007). However, those assessments were done for different purposes using different methods.

This needs assessment expands on the set of priority information needs identified in the 1997 South-ern Interior Forest Extension and Research Project survey (Gregory and Satterfield 1999). That survey showed a strong need for sustainable non-timber forest uses, sustainable timber-practice case studies, computer facilities, and plant and animal inventories. The results of this assessment point to the need for staffing, capacity, education, and training, followed by access to a variety of research information, stud-ies, assessments, and digital data, and the use and collection of Indigenous knowledge in NRM, SFM, and EBM. In a province-wide assessment conducted in 2000, Hollstedt (2000) also recommended that Indigenous knowledge be collected and effectively incorporated into indicators of SFM, and that First Nations research capability be increased through professional and infrastructure development.

Res

po

nse

cat

ego

ries

0

Percentage of respondents (n=11)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Climate change impacts on forest,water, and communities

Trade-offs between social, economic,and ecological indicators

Extension methods

Mountain pine beetle impacts

Other responses

29

The findings of this assessment are also similar to those of workshops and focus groups conducted by Forrex in 1999 and 2000 in First Nations communities in the Southern Interior (Michel et al. 2002). Those sessions identified the following priorities:

• buildingcapacityofFirstNations’communities,intermsoftechnology,humanresources,andknowledge;

• accessingtechnologicalresourcesandinformation;and• collectingandusingIndigenousknowledge.

Michel et al.’s (2002) study also identified “educating non-Aboriginals about Aboriginal communities, and Aboriginal rights and title” as a priority. That was not a focus of this assessment, but it was identified as a need by a few respondents.

Forrex’s 2006 program evaluation, which also involved surveys of First Nations clients, reported that the organization’s forestry extension services were helpful and supported the role of extension as facilita-tor (Morford and Hollstedt 2007). This needs assessment identified topics for extension related to NRM, SFM, EBM, and resource management technology. It also identified the role extension could play in the use of Indigenous knowledge. The two roles for extension that ranked the highest in this needs assess-ment with respect to Indigenous knowledge were:

providing information on what other First Nations are doing; and1. facilitating information-sharing with post-secondary institutions.2.

8 concluSionS and rEcommEndationS

Participation in natural resource management: The respondents rated their involvement with govern-ments as 4.7 out of 10, and with industry as 4.4 out of 10, where 1 was an absence of participation in NRM and 10 was a very high participation and collaboration in NRM activities. This indicates that more effort is needed to increase First Nations participation in NRM. However, 39% of respondents said their participation in NRM has increased over time.

Questions about barriers to participation had the highest number of responses. Lack of funding for participation was identified as the most significant barrier. Respondents also said inadequate working relationships with governments were a fairly significant barrier. This calls for greater collaborative efforts between governments and First Nations on NRM-related projects. Lack of science-based information was also identified as a barrier, and access to research and digital data was identified by many as the most important information need to facilitate their participation in NRM. This emphasizes the need for focused extension with First Nations to meet these knowledge gaps.Sustainable forest management and ecosystem-based management approaches: Most respondents said they were interested in SFM and EBM. Some said that the barrier to their participation in these types of management is lack of funding, and they said they require training in SFM and EBM approach-es. Some interviewees said SFM and EBM approaches are more compatible with First Nations traditional practices of being stewards of the land; thus, they would like Indigenous knowledge to be included in these approaches. This was reinforced in the online surveys. Most survey respondents were interested in using ecological inventories to monitor biodiversity, and incorporating Indigenous knowledge and social, cultural, and economic indicators into management. Other SFM and EBM information needs that were clearly identified in the online survey were related to non-timber forest resources and climate change impacts. Most respondents felt that their level of access to information on SFM or EBM was low

30

to medium. However, some respondents mentioned that Forrex LINK articles have been a source of SFM and EBM information, which emphasizes the importance of extension related to these approaches. Indigenous knowledge: Most respondents felt that barriers to using Indigenous knowledge were more of a hurdle than needs related to the use of this knowledge. Respondents said Indigenous knowledge is not given as much importance as western science; therefore, NRM planning, policy, and research should focus on ways to use Indigenous knowledge alongside western science. Most respondents identified the need for education and training on how to incorporate Indigenous knowledge into NRM. When asked about extension support regarding the use Indigenous knowledge, most respondents said they would like to have information on how other First Nations are using Indigenous knowledge in NRMTechnology: First Nations are using GIS and referral tracking and mapping software, but they need more capacity and training in these technologies. Providing training on the use of other software and hardware for office management and NRM was also identified as a technology-related need.Education, training, and extension: All interviewees ranked access to science-based natural resource education and training as low or medium, which indicates a the need for science-based education, training, and extension. Respondents identified several priorities for NRM education and training: certification in silviculture surveys; training as timber evaluation cruisers, licensed scalers, danger tree assessors, and field GPS operators; and education in ecosystem-based management and traditional gathering. Education and training in most of these areas could be obtained from British Columbia’s universities, colleges, and training institutions. We recommend that policy-makers and First Nations explore how to make these education and training opportunities more accessible to First Nations com-munities.

Recommendations for addressing needs related to education, training, and extension are as follows:

Undertakemorecollaborativeinitiatives,projects,andinformation-sharingbetweengovernments•and First Nations to improve working relationships in NRM. Increase extension with First Nations to address a lack of science-based information and research, •which presents a barrier to their participation in NRM.Increase extension in the use of Indigenous knowledge in NRM.•Increase extension with First Nations on SFM and EBM approaches and on ways to incorporate •Indigeneous knowledge into those approaches.

This study focused on assessing the information needs of First Nations as a means of achieving their greater participation in NRM. Responses that were beyond the scope of this study, such as the ability to exercise Aboriginal rights, and needs for sharing revenue from natural resources, funding, and capac-ity-building, were often mentioned. Issues such as these will usually be part of studies involving First Nations participation in NRM.

Barriers First Nations face in accessing NRM-related information and knowledge and in participating in NRM cannot be easily separated from their needs regarding NRM. Interviewees’ answers often went beyond information needs to identifying other types of needs and barriers. This additional dialogue was helpful for developing an understanding of the broader social and cultural context in which First Na-tions make resource management decisions.

Finding First Nations representatives who had the time and inclination to participate in this study was a major challenge. Thus, it is important to share the results of this study with the people who were interviewed in order to give something back to them for volunteering their time.

This needs assessment provided the added benefit of relationship building with First Nations resource managers. The long-term benefits of an effort such as this can be sustained only if the process of building relationships and trust continues.

31

The results of this assessment represent the views of those interviewed or surveyed. They cannot be extrapolated to represent the opinions of the general population of First Nations groups and organiza-tionswhoparticipatedinthestudy.Despitethislimitation,thestudyprovidesimportantinsightsaboutFirst Nations information needs and barriers related to their participation in natural resource manage-ment in British Columbia.

rEfErEncES

BC Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. 2008. A guide to Aboriginal organizations and services in British Columbia: 2007/2008. BC Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Victoria,BC.www.gov.bc.ca/arr/services/down/guidetoservices_2007.pdfw

BC Ministry of Forests and Range. 2006. The state of British Columbia’s forests, 2006. BC Ministry of ForestsandRange,Victoria,BC. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/sof/2006

BC Stats. 2008. Quick facts about British Columbia: 2008 edition. BC Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services,Victoria,BC.

DavisCase,D.1990.Thecommunity’stoolbox:Theidea,methods,andtoolsforparticipatoryassess-ment, monitoring, and evaluation in community forestry. FAO, Rome. Community Forestry Field Manual 2. www.fao.org/docrep/x5307e/x5307e00.htm

Frankfort-Nachmais,C.andD.Nachmias.1992.Researchmethodsinthesocialsciences.St.Martin’sPress, New York.

Gregory, R. and T. Satterfield. 1999. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership client survey.BCMinistryofForests,ResearchBranch,Victoria,BC.WorkingPaper40.www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/wp/wp40.htm

Hollstedt, C. 2000. Science, innovation, and sustainability: Investing in British Columbia’s knowledge-based natural resource sector. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership, Kamloops, BC. SIFERP Series 2.

Michel,H.,A.Dickie,andC.Hollstedt.2002.NaturalresourceinformationneedsofAboriginalcom-munities in the Southern Interior of British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 2(1):48–58.www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS2/vol2_no1_art3.pdf

Morford, S., and C. Hollstedt. 2007. Revisiting a forest extension strategy for British Columbia: A survey of natural resource practitioners and information providers. BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Re-searchBranch,Victoria,BC.TechnicalReport042.www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr042.htm

32

appEndix 1 Sample interview Questions

The following questions have been written as a guideline to help Forrex generate themes from a number of telephone interviews to be conducted with First Nations groups all over the province. These open-ended questions are a way to start a conversation with you. There is no right or wrong way to answer them, so please answer them in the way that is most appropriate for you and the group you are representing. Thank you for taking the time to discuss these topics.

Describehowyour_______________administersorco-ordinatesnaturalresourcemanagement1. in your territory.

Whatisyour_______________’scurrentparticipationinmanagingnaturalresourcesinyourter-2. ritory?Andwhatisyour_______________currentemploymentlevelinnaturalresourcejobs?

Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) includes forest ecosystems, water, soils, cultural values, 3. trees and smaller plants, non-timber forest resources, animals and their habitats, forest opera-tions, industry and business trends. What knowledge and science-based information, does your _______________wanttoparticipatefullyindecisionsaffectingsustainableforestmanagementinyourterritory?

Similarly, Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) as introduced on the West Coast, takes an holis-tic approach to natural resource management by combining the human, biological, and physical dimensions of natural resource management. Its aim is to achieve sustainability of all resources. Switching from the current approach to forest management to an EBM approach will take time, information,andresources.Whatinformationandknowledgedoesyour_______________wanttopreparetoparticipateinEBMmanagementdecisionsandrecommendations?

Whatdoyouthinkisneededtohelpyour_______________becomemoreinvolvedinusingyour4. knowledgeaboutthelandwithotherpeopleinthenaturalresourcesector?

Describeyour_______________’scurrentaccessto,andapplicationof,currentresourcemanage-5.ment technology (such as GIS, computer hardware and software, and data management). What are your_______________’stechnologicalstrengthsandchallenges?

Whatisyour_______________’scurrentaccesstoeducationandtrainingandinformationsourc-6. es(suchasreadingmaterials,researchdata,andwebsites)inthefieldofresourcemanagement?Whatareyour_______________’stopprioritiesforresourcemanagement-relatededucation,training,andself-directedlearning?

33

appEndix 2 interview guide

topic 1 background information about natural resource management

Sample Question:Describehowyour_______________administersorco-ordinatesNaturalResourceManagement in your territory.

SUB-QUESTIONS (speaking prompts, if needed)

Whomanagesnaturalresourcesinyour_______________?(Seechoicesbelowinthefirstcol-•umn)What is your approach (industrial, community-based, traditional, elected village council, heredi-•tarygovernancesystem,oracombinationofthese)tonaturalresourcemanagement?WhatagreementsandlicencesdoyouhavewiththeProvince?•Aretheseagreementsbeingimplemented?•Doyouharvesttreesfordomesticuse?•

RECORDING AID (if needed)

Management by:

Resource manager–from FN groupResource Manager–from outside FN (consultants)Band Manager or AdministratorFN alliance organizationTribal CouncilDelegatetoTreatyOfficeWorking groupCollaborate with partnersOther_____________

HarvestingTreesforDomesticUse?

Ifyes,whatVolume?

Approach:

Industrial (production) forestrySustainable Forest ManagementEcosystem-based managementTraditionalCommunity-basedNon-timber forest resourcesOther_____________

Agreements/Licences:

Forest & Range AgreementForest LicenceTreaty Related MeasureInterim MeasureOther_____________Other_____________

Notes:

34

topic 2 participation and jobs in natural resource management

Sample Question:Whatisyour_______________’scurrentparticipationinmanagingnaturalresourc-esinyourterritory?Andwhatisyour_______________scurrentemploymentlevelinnaturalresourcejobs?

SUB-QUESTIONS (speaking prompts, if needed)

Whatisyourgroup’slevelofparticipationindecisionsaffectingnaturalresourcemanagement?•Withgovernments?Withindustry?Hasthislevelchangedovertheyears?Ifso,hasitimproved,stayedthesame,orbeenreduced?•Howwouldyouliketoparticipateinthefuture?•What barriers does your group face in participating fully in natural resource management deci-•sionsandrecommendations?What information do you need to be more involved in natural resource management decisions and •recommendations?How many/ what percentage of adults from your community are working full-time in stable jobs in •naturalresourcemanagement?

RECORDING AID (if needed)

LoggingNon-timber forest productsResource inventories

MiningHunting and fishingOther_____________

Conservation effortsMonitoring environmental indicatorsDon’tknow

Level of current participation with governments: Scale of 1-10:

Level of current participation with industry: Scale of 1-10:

35

Level of participation in NR management

Stayed the same•Increased•Decreased•Satisfied with current level•Not satisfied with current level•Want more participation•Choose not to engage because •don’t agree with process

Barriers to participation in NR management

Lack of Indigenous knowledge•Lack of science-based info•Lack of expert research•Indigenous knowledge not •respectedLack of government •information-sharingLack of industry information-•sharingLack of information-sharing •with other FNPoor working relationship with •governmentsPoor working relationship with •industryNot enough help from tribal •council/umbrella organizationLack of capacity•Lack of adequate staff•Lack of time to deal with •referralsLack of funding•Lack of education and training•Lack of technology•Decisionstoofastforinput•

Information needs for resource management

More research about Indigenous •land useAccess to science-based •informationAccess to expert research•Access to post-secondary •researchAccess to government research•Access to industry research•Access to municipal plans•Access to provincial plans•Access to federal plans•Access to government policy•Access to environmental impact •studiesAccess to FN sustenance impact •studiesAccess to cumulative impact •studiesFunding•Improved education for •Indigenous peopleTraining in development •processBetter technology•

Notes:

36

topic 3 access and knowledge needs regarding Sustainable forest management (Sfm) and Ecosystem-based management (Ebm)

Sample Question: Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) includes forest ecosystems, water, soils, cultural values, trees and smaller plants, non-timber forest resources, animals and their habitats, forest operations, industry and business trends. What knowledge and science-based information, does your _______________wanttoparticipatefullyindecisionsaffectingsustainableforestmanagementinyourterritory?

Similarly, Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) as introduced in the coast of BC, takes a holistic ap-proach to natural resource management by combining the human, biological, and physical dimensions of natural resource management. Its aim is to achieve sustainability of all resources. Switching from the current approach to forest management to an EBM approach will take time, information, and resources. Whatinformationandknowledgedoesyour_______________wanttopreparetoparticipateinEBMdecisionsandrecommendations?

SUB-QUESTIONS (speaking prompts, if needed)

Whatkindofaccessdoyoucurrentlyhavetoscience-basedSFMorEBM,data,andresearch?•What kinds of science-based information, data, and research do you need better access to (e.g., •government, post-secondary institution, and industry) to participate fully in SFM or EBM deci-sionsandrecommendations?What research/studies have you done (or have access to) on Indigenous approaches to forestry •management?DoyouhaveanexampleofaSFMorEBMdecisionorrecommendationwhereyouhadadequate•informationtoparticipatefullyintheprocess?What barriers does your group face in participating fully in SFM or EBM decisions and recom-•mendation?

RECORDING AID (if needed)

Current access to info about Sustainable Forestry/EBM

Information needs for Sustainable Forestry/EBM

Rank 1-10 Rank 1-10

Science-based infoGovernment infoIndustry infoPost-secondary infoOther FN infoNGO infoOther expert research info

Science-based infoGovernment infoIndustry infoPost-secondary infoOther FN infoNGO infoOther expert research info

37

Indigenous research on forestry

TEK/TUS•GIS mapping•Other Aboriginal land-use •studiesEthnography•Treaty studies•

Examples of adequate info_____________decision/•recommendationGovernment info provided•Industry info provided•Post-secondary info provided•Other FN info provided•NGO info provided•Other expert research provided•

Barriers to SFM/EBM

Lack of Indigenous knowledge•Lack of science-based info•Lack of expert research•Indigenous knowledge not •respectedLack of government •information-sharing Lack of industry information-sharingLack of information-sharing •with other FN Poor working relationships with •governments Poor working relationships with industryNot enough help from tribal •council/umbrella organizationLack of capacity•Lack of adequate staff•Lack of funding•Lack of education and training•Lack of technology•Decisionstoofastforinput•

Information needs for SFM/EBM

More research about Indigenous •land use Access to science-based •information Access to expert research•Access to post-secondary •research Access to government research•Access to industry research•Access to municipal plans•Access to provincial plans•Access to federal plans•Access to government policy•Access to environmental impact •studies Access to FN sustenance impact •studies Access to cumulative impact •studies Funding •Improved education for •Indigenous people Training in development process•Better technology•

Notes:

38

topic 4 use of indigenous knowledge

Sample Question:Whatdoyouthinkisneededtohelpyour_______________becomemoreinvolvedinusingyourIndigenousknowledge(ifyour_______________wantsto)aboutthelandwithotherpeopleinthenaturalresourcesector?

SUB-QUESTIONS (speaking prompts, if needed)

What Indigenous knowledge have you collected/recorded relating to natural resource manage-•ment?Are you satisfied with your current capacity to use Indigenous knowledge in natural resource man-•agementdecisionsorrecommendations?Doyouhaveanexampleofaspecificnaturalresourcemanagementdecisionwhereyoufeltyou•hadanadequateopportunitytoincludeIndigenousknowledgeintotheprocess?Whatinformationdidyouprovide?What barriers are the most limiting to your ability to use Indigenous knowledge in natural resource •managementdecisionsandrecommendation?What do you need the most to improve your ability to use Indigenous knowledge in natural re-•sourcemanagementdecisionsandrecommendations?Wouldyour_______________liketoshareyourIndigenousknowledgeaboutthelandwithoth-•ersinthenaturalresourcesector?Ifnot,whynot?Ifyes,whatwouldbeneededtobetterenableyour_______________toshareIndigenousknowl-•edgewithothers?How could • Forrex and the FIA–FSP support your use of Indigenous knowledge in natural re-sourcemanagement?

39

RECORDING AID (if needed)

Satisfaction with current capacity to use and/or share Indigenous knowledge:

Scale of 1-10:

Indigenous knowledge (with regard to NR management)

TEK/TUS•GIS mapping•Other Aboriginal land-use •studiesEthnography•Treaty studies•

Examples of Adequate Info_____________decision/•recommendationMining •LoggingHunting and fishing•Non-timber forest products•Conservation efforts•Resource inventories •

Barriers to use of Indigenous knowledge

Lack of Indigenous knowledge•Lack of science-based info•Lack of expert research•Indigenous knowledge not •respectedNeed interviews with elders•Elders passing before interviews•Indigenous knowledge not •taught in school Lack of government •information-sharingLack of industry information-•sharingLack of information-sharing •with other FN Poor working relationships with •governmentsPoor working relationships with •industryNot enough help from tribal •council/umbrella organizationLack of capacity•Lack of adequate staff•Lack of funding•Lack of education and training •Lack of technologyDecisionstoofastforinput•

Information needs for use of Indigenous knowledge

More research about Indigenous •land use Access to science-based •information Access to expert research•Access to post-secondary •researchAccess to government research•Access to industry research•More interviews with elders•Improved Indigenous education•Access to municipal plans•Access to provincial plans•Access to federal plans•Access to government policy•Access to environmental impact •studies Access to FN sustenance impact •studies Access to cumulative impact •studies Funding •Improved education for •Indigenous people Training in development process•Better technology •

Forrex assistance:Facilitate information-sharing with government•Facilitate information-sharing with industry•Facilitate information-sharing with post-secondary institutions•Provide information on what other First Nations are doing•Provide information on training opportunities for First Nations•Provide information on funding opportunities •Other___________________________________•

Notes:

40

topic 5 natural resource management technology needs

Sample Question 4:Describeyour_______________’scurrentaccessto,andapplicationof,currentre-source management technology (such as GIS, computer hardware and software, and data management). Whatareyour_______________’stechnologicalstrengthsandchallenges?

SUB-QUESTIONS (speaking prompts, if needed)

What specific technology do you currently use to aid in managing natural resources in your terri-•tory(e.g.,hardware,software,GIS,anddatamanagement)?Current strengths: What technologies are you currently using that are particularly good at assisting •withnaturalresourcemanagement?Current challenges: What technology would improve your participation in natural resource man-•agement?What barriers are the most limiting to your ability to access and use technology that would im-•proveyourparticipationinnaturalresourcemanagement?What resources or information do you need to improve your application of technology in natural •resourcemanagement?

RECORDING AID (if needed)

Current available technology

__________Age/efficiencyof•computers__________Typesofsoftware•__________GIS•__________Datamanagement•

Strengths of available technology__________Age/efficiencyof•computers__________Typesofsoftware•__________GIS•__________Datamanagement•

Challenges of available technology

__________Age/efficiencyof•computers__________Typesofsoftware•__________GIS•__________Datamanagement•

Barriers to applying technology

Lack of capacity•Lack of adequate staff •Lack of fundingLack of education and training•Poor/slow internet access•Old/inadequate hardware•Old/inadequate software•Old/inadequate computer •accessoriesLack of maintenance of •hardware and other equipmentPoor working relationships with •governmentsPoor working relationships with •industryPoor working relationships with •NGOsNot enough help from tribal •council/umbrella organizationLack of partnerships with post-•secondary institutions

Information needs for applying technology

Access to tribal council/ •umbrella organization technology centresDevelop/improvetribal•council/umbrella organization technology centresMore assistance from tribal •council/ umbrella organization technology centres Assistance from post-secondary •institutionsAssistance from governments•Partnerships with industry•Partnerships with NGOs•Improved internet access•More training for community •membersEncourage/support self-•employment in technology fieldTechnology needs analysis•Expert advice •

Notes:

41

topic 6 Education and training in natural resource management

Sample Question 6:Whatisyour_______________’scurrentaccesstoeducationandtrainingandinformation sources (such as reading materials, research data, and websites) in the field of resource man-agement?Whatareyour_______________’stopprioritiesforresourcemanagement-relatededucation,training,andself-directedlearning?

SUB-QUESTIONS (speaking prompts, if needed)

What is your current access to the following kinds of training and education:•Post-secondary•Training opportunities for TEK and other Indigenous knowledge collection•Training opportunities for science-based knowledge of natural resources•Reading materials, research data, and websites•Entrepreneurial and self-employment start-up•Indigenous language and culture•

Approximately how many/what percentage of people in your community are receiving formal •naturalresourcemanagementtraining/education?Areyousatisfiedwiththislevel?Approximately how many/what percentage of people in your community are receiving Indigenous •training/education?Areyousatisfiedwiththislevel?Approximately how many/what percentage of people in your community are receiving entrepre-•neurial/self-employmenttraining/education?Areyousatisfiedwiththislevel?What barriers are the most limiting to your ability to access training and education relating to •naturalresourcemanagement?What information/resources do you need to improve your access to natural resource management •trainingandeducation?

RECORDING AID (if needed)

Current access to education and training Rank 1-10

Post-secondaryIndigenous knowledge collectionScience-based natural resourcesWritten materials, research, and websitesEntrepreneurial and self-employment start-upIndigenous language and culture

42

Current levels of education and training

___________number/%with•formal training___________number/%with•Indigenous training___________number/%with•entrepreneurial training

Barriers to education and training

Indigenous knowledge not •taught in school Indigenous culture not taught in schoolLack of knowledge by •government of training/education Lack of knowledge by industry •of training/educationEducation too expensive•Education too far away•Lack of distance education •optionsPoor internet connection for •distance educationLack of technology•Lack of Indigenous trainers•Lack of co-ordination with •tribal council/umbrella organizationLack of support from •governmentPoor partnership with industry•Poor partnership with post •secondaryLow high school completion •

Information/resource needs for education and training

Improve FN education•More Aboriginal education •alternatives More networking with other FN•Better partnerships with •governments Better partnerships with •industry Better partnerships with post-•secondary Better partnerships with tribal •council/ umbrella organization’s training centresRecruit financial partners •Increase incentives for education Increase incentives for high •school graduationBetter access to written •materials Better access to internet •resourcesBetter access to distance •education Train more Aboriginal •educators Better adult education (non-•GED)Pay people to attend training•More recognition for Aboriginal •educationBetter utilization of elders’ •knowledge

Notes:

43

appEndix 3 online Survey Questionnaire

Assessing the information needs of First Nations related to sustainable forest management (SFM) or ecosystem-based management (eBM).

I respectfully request you to complete this short survey to help us better understand the forest science information needs of your First Nation. This survey of seven questions should not take more than 10 minutes of your time.

I am conducting this survey on behalf of FORREX and the Forest Investment Account–Forest Science Program (FIA–FSP). FORREX is a non-profit, charitable organization that works with people to develop solutions to issues around natural resources. The FIA–FSP funds forest science initiatives that address knowledge needed to enable science-based sustainable forest management in BC. The information you provide will improve FORREX’s and the FIA–FSP’s ability to provide First Nations research and extension services.

The information you provide is confidential. The results will be made available to the FIA–FSP and First Nations. Also, please feel free to forward this link to others who might help us with this information.

Thank you very much for participating in the survey. I recognize that your time is valuable and I am very grateful for it. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Extension Specialist - Aboriginal Forestry and Indigenous Knowledge, FORREX

Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are mandatory.

* 1. Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) includes forest ecosystems, water, soils, cultural values, trees and smaller plants, non-timber forest resources, animals and their habitats, forest operations, industry and business trends. Does your First Nation want any science-based information re-lated to SFM? PLEASE CLICK A BOX IN THIS AND THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.

* 2. ecosystem-based Management (EBM) as introduced in the coast of BC takes a holistic approach to natural resource management by combining it’s human, biological, and physical dimensions. Its aim is to achieve sustainability of all resources, including native species. Does your First Na-tion want any science-based information related to eBM?

If your answer is YeS to either Question 1 or 2, could you please identify the type of information your First Nation needs by answering the following questions.

44

What are your information needs related to 3. ecosystem-based management (eBM) and biodiver-sity? You can select one or more of the choices below. PLEASE CLICK A BOX OR BOXES IN THIS AND THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

Assessing, managing, monitoring, and evaluating biodiversity

Contribution of protected areas and non-harvestable landbase to maintenance of biodiversity

Natural disturbance patterns and implications for forest management and restoration

Invasive species

Habitat requirements for species at risk

Ecological restoration- techniques, requirements

mpacts of range management on biodiversity

Improved inventories for ecological values

Other, please specify

What are your information needs related to 4. socio-economics and cultural values? You can select one or more of the choices below.

Incorporating social, economic, and cultural indicators into planning, operations, and policy

Incorporation of Indigenous and experiential knowledge in management

Monitoring systems for conservation of cultural heritage resources

Valuing non-timber economic values for inclusion in operations, planning, and policy

Public participation processes

Social trends and values

Public attitudes, values, and preferences

Community forestry

Certification

Other, please specify

What are your information needs related to watershed processes and management? You can select 5. one or more of the choices below.

Forest management impacts on water quality or quantity

Range management impacts on water quality or quantity

Pest and fire impacts on water quality and quantity

Stream geomorphology

Hillslope geomorphology and soils

Forest engineering (e.g., roads and stream crossings)

Riparian management

Hydrologic recovery and silviculture systems

Other, please specify

45

What are your information needs related to 6. forest operations and planning? You can select one or more of the choices below.

Sustainable forest management planning

Silvicultural options

Vegetation management

Growth and yield predictions

Pest management

Harvesting technologies

Impacts of large scale salvage

Soil productivity and conservation

Non-timber forest products

Monitoring procedures

Utilitization

Other, please specify

What are your information needs related to 7. other issues related to forest management not covered in the preceding questions? You can select one or more of the choices below.

Trade-offs between social, economic, and ecological indicators

Climate change impacts on forests, water, and communities

Mountain pine beetle impacts

Extension methods

Other, please specify