Course:CONS200/2024WT1/Impacts of Indigenous non-monetary valuation of forest products on forest conservation

From UBC Wiki

Introduction

Indigenous peoples in British Columbia were not given the option to consider treaties with the federal government, and therefore British Columbia is referred to as “unceded territory” unsurrendered to any colonial government. With this colonial history of negligence from the Canadian government, Indigenous peoples in British Columbia are still pursuing recognition in many governmental affairs.[1] Many Indigenous nations within Canada, have held different ideologies and structures of values for millennia prior to European contact and colonization. Terms like economic benefit, economic growth, financial gain, and capitalism are ideas that were forced upon the Indigenous peoples not many generations ago, and these communities are still adjusting to these values today.

“Indigenous peoples were forced to assimilate into the market economy, political system and European concept of civilization.” [2]

Even today, Indigenous groups can be found giving high levels of priority to the non-monetary valuation of forest products and ecosystems alongside monetary-based frameworks. Forests are the source of cultural traditions, spiritual knowledge, traditional foods and revenue for numerous communities in B.C and across the globe. Canada’s early logging practices did not factor in sustainability, the environment, the Indigenous relationship to the land or the traditional and cultural significance of the forests to First Peoples.

The rate at which Canada’s forests were being logged and ecosystems destroyed with no regard for Indigenous values, beliefs or traditional knowledge caused great concern among Indigenous Peoples. Forest products also often play a crucial role in social cohesion and community well-being. They can be sources of food, medicine, and materials for housing and crafts, fostering community resilience and self-sufficiency. The sharing and exchange of these products can strengthen social bonds and cultural practices.

Indigenous valuation systems often incorporate traditional ecological knowledge, which encompasses the understanding of sustainable harvesting practices, seasonal cycles, and the interrelationships between species. This knowledge is passed down through generations and is critical for the sustainable management of forest resources.

Non-Monetary Valuation in Canada and Globally

Understanding Non-Monetary Valuation

Non-monetary valuation represents a framework used to communicate the importance of various ecosystem resources beyond their value in strictly monetary terms. This framework can be effective in understanding the value placed on ecosystem goods and services for which there are no market prices.[3] For Indigenous communities in British Columbia, Canada and across the globe, this can include the cultural, spiritual, dietary or other values that may be assigned to forest products and other natural resources.

Indigenous non-monetary valuation of forest products as an approach is set in contrast with conventional economic valuation, which often prioritizes monetary gain over ecological and cultural integrity.

Clean air, carbon sequestration, and recreational opportunities, all represent value coming from forest ecosystems that are not easily captured by monetary valuation-based frameworks and market mechanisms.

The Indigenous non-monetary valuation of forest products highlights the multifaceted relationships that Indigenous peoples have with their environment. It emphasizes the importance of recognizing and respecting these values in conservation and resource management efforts, as they play a crucial role in the sustainability of both ecosystems and Indigenous cultures.

Sacred Grove site in Kerala, India.[4]

Non-Monetary Valuation and Culture in India

In India and the region of South Asia, a demonstration of the forest's cultural value to Indigenous communities can be seen through a tradition of protected areas dedicated to deities and ancestral spirits. These areas, known as Sacred Groves represent a significant part of India's rich regional history and play an important role in the lives of local communities by providing religious, and spiritual value. In addition to this cultural value, Sacred Grove areas provide communally protected habitats for threatened, endangered and rare species, thus acting as a large proponent of the region's biological diversity and richness.[5]

The cultural and spiritual value held in these Sacred Grove areas and through their connected practices are essential components for maintaining community cohesion and serve to reinforce the spiritual significance of the groves.

The Khasi tribe of Meghalaya in the northeastern part of India often holds religious ceremonies in sacred groves, where elders perform rituals to invoke blessings for health, fertility, and good harvests. The communities residing in this area have established 79 sacred forests covering approximately 9000 ha. with average size varying from 0.01 ha to 1200 ha, with at least 50 rare and endangered plant species of Meghalaya confined to these groves.[6]

In rural areas of India, many plants and animals are considered pious and sacred religiously having imbibed cultural values among the tribal communities. The religious belief serves as an instrument of protection of those rare forest species.[7] Through all these cultural and ecological benefits, sacred grove areas are epicentres of ecological conservation research and policy regarding the conservation and management of forests at state and national levels.[8]

Non-Monetary Ecosystem Valuation and Grassroots Resistance in Tanzania

Image of Hadzabe community members.[9]

In Tanzania, numerous Indigenous communities hold deep, multifaceted relationships with the land and ecosystems. Their non-monetary valuation of these resources is often centred around cultural, spiritual, ecological, and social significance, reflecting worldviews prioritizing sustainability, communal well-being, and environmental interconnectedness.

Dating back to colonial times, parks in Tanzania have been characterized by a fortress model of conservation that physically displaces human inhabitants, dispossessing them of the resources upon which they are dependent.[10]

Indigenous communities in Tanzania, including the Maasai, Barabaig, Akie, Sonjo and Hadzabe, rely heavily on access to communal lands for their traditional livelihoods, such as pastoralism and hunting-gathering. However, land conflicts, insufficient legal protections, and the encroachment of development projects pose significant threats to their way of life. In addition, conservation laws often prioritize wildlife and tourism over the rights of Indigenous Peoples, leading to displacement and loss of livelihoods.[9]

Fire and Non-Monetary Valuation in B.C and Canada

Cultural burning practices in B.C, Canada.[11]

Indigenous nations across British Columbia and Canada have long practiced a method of cultural burning to rejuvenate ecosystems and prevent extreme wildfire seasons. These culturally based wildfire management approaches involve low-intensity burning of underbrush to clear potential fuel for larger wildfires in the future. This practice of intentional understory fire use has been found to renew and strengthen nutrient cycling, and in providing cultural value, strengthens plant, tree and animal communities essential to the social cohesion, health, and overall well-being of Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, Canada and across the world at large.

B.C. became the first province to ban cultural burns with the Bush Fire Act of 1874 in B.C., with other provinces following suit in the early 1900s. Similar to the Potlatch ban, which the federal government implemented in 1884, the burning ban aimed to remove ceremonies and assimilate Indigenous Peoples.[11]

"Activating landscape is also having that right fire so that the seeds grow and the berries grow, and the animals come back ... the whole idea of this is to activate landscapes to bring it back to life, to connect people back to that and to show that interrelationship and responsible role that people have inherited over thousands of years.” [11] - Victor Steffensen

Currently in British Columbia

First Nations groups in Canada have valued their natural resources in ways beyond profitability for thousands of years, and therefore they were able to steward and sustain these resources for millennia. In British Columbia, Canada, many Indigenous groups have a non-monetary valuation of their forest products/non-timber forest products (NTFPs), “[…] NTFPs do not play a key role in the market economy, the products are important in their culture and traditional economy.”[2] Additionally, the forest landscape itself has non-monetary valuation by British Columbia’s Indigenous peoples, they rely on their natural environment for spiritual, traditional, and cultural practices that in some cases otherwise cannot be practiced.[2]

Sts'ailes Land Code

The Sts'ailes, who are a group within the Coast Salish First Nation in British Columbia, rely on a variety of NTFPs for their traditional and cultural uses, and these uses can be split into four overlapping categories: food and medicine, cultural products such as clothing and crafts, ceremonial rites, and spiritual practices.[2] The NTFPs are valued beyond economic benefit to allow access to local community members because they are “[…] tangible means of passing traditional knowledge from generation to generation.”[2] Conserving their natural world is a crucial step in preserving their culture.

To be granted the right to leadership over their traditional territory, the Sts'ailes people signed a Land Code, outlining administrative structures that apply to their traditional unceded territory.[12] The Land Code includes information on land use policies that explicitly state the requirement of having Sts'ailes community input and consultation when planning land use, creating or prohibiting licenses, etcetera.[12] It is stated that the foundation of the Land Code is the Sts'ailes people’s Origin Story, explaining their dependence on their natural environment.[12] With this understanding, the Sts'ailes people recognize that it is their generational right and responsibility to conserve their traditional lands and resources, much of that being within forest ecosystems.

For years, British Columbia relied on clear-cutting as their main forest management strategy, and signing the Land Code gave the Sts'ailes the legal right to make decisions about what forestry practices take place on their land. Although the Land Code gives their community the opportunity for economic development, former Chief William Charlie highlighted the vitality of protecting the environment, “how can we use them [Land Code laws] for economic development without compromising the environment.”[13]

Coastal First Nations and the Nanwakolas Council in the Great Bear Rainforest

The Great Bear Rainforest (GBR) is the largest intact coastal temperate rainforest, it expands along the coast of Central and Northern British Columbia and borders Alaska, USA. In the 1990s, much of the old-growth forests were being clear-cut logged and the health of the forest was degrading.[1] Many of Coastal British Columbia’s Indigenous communities are located in the Great Bear Rainforest, collectively known as the Coastal First Nations and Nanwakolas Council Alliances.[1]

In 2006, a consensus was reached between the Provincial government, the Coastal First Nations and the Nanwakolas Council, this transferred the decision-making power over to the Indigenous groups in the region, these agreements are referred to as The Great Bear Rainforest Agreements (GBRA).[1] This shift allowed for a switch from primarily clear-cut logging to more conservation-based management, “The term ‘ecosystem-based management’ was deliberately chosen over ‘ecosystem management’"[14], to emphasize that the intent was to manage human activities, rather than to manage ecosystems.”[14] Even though signing over rights to the rainforest to the Indigenous communities allowed for economic opportunities, the framework that was the basis of the GBRA stated that protecting the ecological values of the region was their priority.[14]

Challenges

Limited Legal Recognition of Indigenous Conservation Areas

Indigenous-led conservation relies on traditional laws and governance, which are often neglected or undervalued compared to Canadian law. Despite Indigenous laws predating colonial systems, they are frequently overridden by Canadian legal frameworks, creating barriers to Indigenous environmental stewardship. The lack of legal recognition, limits their ability to exercise local decision-making power, especially when it comes to the non-monetary value they place on forest products.

A clear example is the case of the Kitasoo Xai'xais Nation, which highlights the difficulties Indigenous communities often face in conserving their territories without encountering opposition from the government. In this instance, the Kitasoo Xai'xais people enacted laws to protect culturally significant areas in Kitasu Bay from commercial fishing.[15] These lands are not just resources but hold profound cultural, historical, and spiritual significance, serving as sacred spaces tied to their ancestral heritage and traditional ecological knowledge.[15] However, Fisheries and Oceans Canada declared these areas open to commercial fishing, disregarding the Indigenous laws intended to protect them.[15]

This conflict illustrates how the absence of proper legal recognition of Indigenous land rights leaves communities vulnerable to colonial practices that prioritize economic exploitation over cultural and ecological stewardship. By neglecting the holistic values Indigenous peoples assign to their lands, current systems perpetuate exclusion and marginalization, limiting the ability of Indigenous communities to safeguard their territories and cultural heritage.

Resource Extraction Driven by Economic Incentives

Historically, British Columbia has maintained a strong resource extraction industry, primarily in fishing, mining, and forestry, which has significantly contributed to a settler-colonial economy.[16] These extraction models prioritize economic gain while often disregarding the cultural and spiritual significance these lands hold for Indigenous communities.

A notable example of this is the case of the Blueberry River First Nation, whose lands were severely impacted despite the protections guaranteed under Treaty 8. Signed in 1899, Treaty 8 created a framework that allowed Indigenous communities to share their land while preserving their traditional way of life.[17] However the government systematically undermined these protections by permitting extensive logging, oil and gas exploration, mining, and hydroelectric projects on Blueberry River First Nation territory.[17]

The cumulative effects were profound: degraded water quality from industrial operations disrupted fishing and access to clean water, loss of wildlife habitats diminished hunting opportunities, and overall landscape changes severed cultural and spiritual connections to the land.[18] This environmental degradation directly threatened the ability of Indigenous communities to pass on traditional knowledge, practices, and cultural identities to future generations, fundamentally altering their way of life.[18]

This example underscores a broader issue in British Columbia and beyond: the pervasive disregard for Indigenous governance and traditional ecological knowledge in favor of resource extraction models that prioritize short-term economic gain. By failing to integrate Indigenous perspectives into land management and conservation, governments perpetuate systems that disregard the non-monetary value Indigenous communities place on ecosystems.

Challenges in Sustaining Funding

Indigenous-led conservation efforts face significant funding challenges, particularly when emphasizing non-monetary valuations of forest products, such as cultural, spiritual, and ecological importance. Traditional funding mechanisms often prioritize projects with quantifiable economic returns, making it difficult for Indigenous communities to secure consistent support for conservation initiatives that use non-monetary contributions.

An example of this challenge is the Marine Plan Partnership (MaPP), which struggled with multi-year funding due to its reliance on in-kind resources and grants.[19] The MaPP was established in 2011, involving 18 Indigenous Nations and the Government of British Columbia.[19] It aimed to create marine plans across a vast area of 102,000 square kilometers in Northern British Columbia.[19] Indigenous conservation initiatives often depend on short-term, unpredictable funding that comes on a case-by-case basis or changes with government priorities.[20] Current funding models are inadequate for Indigenous-led conservation.[20] As the Canadian government looks to invest in Indigenous-led conservation it must be accompanied by stable long-term funding that acknowledges Indigenous non-monetary valuation of forest products.

Future Impact of Indigenous Forestry Practices

Results of Present Day, Ongoing Indigenous Forestry in North America

The Huu-ay-aht Nation and their battle to establish themselves as the forestry standard in British Columbia (BC)

Having worked with forestry companies, they were able to buy back much of their ancestral land and manage it to their standards. This includes milling less land, planting more cedar, and establishing firm ties with the surrounding community. While they earn a sum for their work, without this they would not have the access to their land or the power to make non-monetary based decisions on management. Their ideology and sustainable mindset are reflected in their work, like leaving land to regenerate for more than the standard twenty years. While not ideal, this is the standard in post-colonial Canada, and thus their practice must be considered in Indigenous non-monetary-based forestry.

The future goals of Indigenous Forestry reflect the same notions that Indigenous communities prioritize in all sectors of life; mainly hisuk ma cawak, the concept that ‘everything is one’[21]. The Huu-ay-aht nation discuss this as conceptualizing the forest and all of its parts, no one is more important than the other. In order to do so, the Huu-ay-aht work very closely with forestry corporations and do soil and biodiversity checks before and after milling the land. This ensures that they have a strong understanding of the impacts of removal on specific areas within their managerial space. Furthermore, by constantly measuring such data they can adjust their future milling sites. An example of this is only ‘falling’ 50,000 ha of the provincially recommended 58,000 ha, thus preserving more of the trees than required by government standards[21]. Another technique they employ to ensure that they do not impact the surrounding ecosystem is the use of protection on seedlings in high elk-grazing areas. This allows the elk to go about their business without impacting the growth rate of seedlings like cedar. Once the tree reaches a phase where they will no be overly damaged by elk and other similar animals, the protection is removed and it is allowed to develop as it naturally would. Each of these methods ensures the least possible amount of anthropocentric impact on the land, by ensuring that forestry does not take too much soil fertility or prevent the elk from sustaining their diet, hisuk ma cawak ensures that all parts of the forest receive their fair share and evaluates the land as one instead of its individual components.[22]

Beyond the creatures of the forest, the Huu-ay-aht hope to become the precedent in BC Forestry, setting the standard for modes of forestry that preserve valuable specimens like cedar and old-growth forests for future generations. They also wish to promote the tradition of forestry to more of their people, as the job was previously frowned upon in the community. The re-introduction of forestry jobs in this area has changed the minds of many that frowned upon foresting due to its intensive and often destructive process. While they still earn money from their work, in a monetary-based system there was no other way for them to gain access to manage their ancestral land.[21] That said, their practices still reflect similar Indigenous forestry values worldwide and are a step away from traditional companies and management in Canada, thus they are important to consider. Furthermore, they are not engaging in forestry to earn a profit, their goal is to restore the forests of B.C., allow old growth to continue to flourish, ensure future access to traditional resources like cedar, and maintain their cultural integrity.

The Menominee Nation and the preservation of their land.

Menominee Reserve managed Forests compared to the surrounding area.

While outside of Canada, the Menominee nation manages Boreal Forest as well and thus employ measures that would be valuable and can be mirrored in Canadian forests. Further, they consider forest management to be a key responsibility of their tribe, having harvested their woods for more than 170 years.

In forestry worldwide, the Menominee Nation considers public opinion as the main barrier to future forestry. They want to establish a national campaign to reintroduce sustainable forestry to the public and shift mindsets away from any negative connotations introduced by settler-nation established forestry.[22] Due to their unique experience of residing in the only county fully encompassed within a reserve, the Menominee nation are able to work together with less interference from settle bureaucracy. They have established a company that works to manage the forest through drone-monitoring, controlled fire, and techniques like harvesting a forest stand gradually.

Controlled fire is a cultural technique that involves a managed burning of an area of the forest in order to prevent excess dry biomass from fueling future fires. This practice was banned in Canada in 1874, and there has been a noted increase in wildfire intensity since then, noting a probable relationship between the two.[11]

Such methods are important to consider when evaluating how to shift the public mindset away from negative thinking about forestry. Many Americans dislike the concept of foresting and tree cutting because of what they’ve seen in the media.[22] And it is true that many forestry companies have engaged in harmful practices that have not only endangered the forests, but human life[23]. However, Indigenous non-monetary based forestry is a different lens of forestry that manages the forest and produces timber in a sustainable way. The only question the Menominee ask is how to communicate this. They are interesting in establishing a national campaign that will grow interest in Indigenous forestry and shine light on the methods in which forestry can be done sustainable. One of their hopes is that the public will than shift its dollar to reflect these practices and further allow them to implement more.

Potential Opportunities and Development

Positive Consequence of more Cedar Growth

Cedar trees are an important component in Indigenous ceremony and cultural practice. Each part of the tree, from the syrup that flows under the bark to the timber the fallen tree produces is utilized. Moreover, the tree is harvested for different parts at different times to preserve its lifespan and allow it to interact with the other trees upon the land it resides.[24] In British Columbia, many forestry companies have been planting hemlock stands after the old growth cedar has been logged.[24] Further, Hemlock is a dense species that makes it difficult for cedar trees to grow properly.

Ultimately, the preservation and continuous planting of cedar by the Huu-ay-aht will not only act as a ceremonial outlet, but help begin to establish future old-growth forests. Cedar trees can live up to two-thousand years if managed properly, currently it is policy to cut them down after fifty.[24] Old-growth forests contain more biodiversity and are key to preserving boreal biodiversity.[25]

A Method of Reconciliation

Discussed by the leader of Huu-ay-aht, he considered the mutual benefit of forestry after the signing of the ‘treaty’. There are many policies in Canada that prevent Indigenous land control, mainly the Indian Act and the British North America Act (otherwise known as the Constitution Act of 1867). While it is not ideal that the Huu-ay-aht must work within the restraints of a monterey-based society, the purchasing of their ancestral territory from the state has re-established their autonomy. Broadly defined as the beginning of an amicable relationship after the conclusion of a conflict, reconciliation is a divisive topic for many in modern times. Establishing Indigenous forestry as a pathway to reconcile, allows traditional non-monetary practices to be granted a dollar value. In a GDP-based society it is necessary to evaluate these processes fairly and unfortunately that includes money. That does not necessarily mean that reconciliation is based in a cash dollar, it is simply something that should be included. That is seen in the Huu-ay-aht’s management style, they are only interested in money as a tool to give them more access to their cultural territory. While complicated, reconciliation must be a key attribute in Canadian policy moving forward, however in the meantime -with The Indian Act still in power- other pursuits of equity are important to consider.

Conclusion

Living in a post-colonial society where economic goals are the main driver of the economy, establishing a system with no monetary outlet is nearly impossible. With ever changing political landscapes, a 'good' monetary evaluation is a key way to keep control of land, unfortunately this usually involves land ownership and privatization. What we have seen in Canada is that in order for Indigenous Nations to be granted permission to manage their land they must buy it back from the Government. Thus that is what the Huu-Ayy-Ahy Nation did. While they must continue to make revenue if they want to expand their processes, their practice is not based in increasing profit.

It is important to consider the world in which society is involved in when defining if something is based in monetary value. What we have seen here is that while the accumulation of cashflow is an element of forestry, it is not the focus of non-monetary based Indigenous forestry. The Huu-Ayy-Aht have demonstrated a deep respect for the land and its resources, recognizing the cultural significance of materials such as cedar, while also prioritizing principles such as ensuring elk have adequate food and safeguarding the water basin. The Menominee also practice similar techniques, with the notion of giving back to the land as a centerpiece of their practice. Indigenous forestry practices, exemplified by the Huu-Ayy-Aht and Menominee Nations, prioritize stewardship, sustainability, and respect for the land over profit, offering a profound contrast to corporate-driven models and highlighting the importance of integrating these values into broader environmental and economic frameworks.

References

Please use the Wikipedia reference style. Provide a citation for every sentence, statement, thought, or bit of data not your own, giving the author, year, AND page. For dictionary references for English-language terms, I strongly recommend you use the Oxford English Dictionary. You can reference foreign-language sources but please also provide translations into English in the reference list.

Note: Before writing your wiki article on the UBC Wiki, it may be helpful to review the tips in Wikipedia: Writing better articles.

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Low, Margaret; Shaw, Karena (Winter 2011/2012). "FIRST NATIONS RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE: Lessons from the Great Bear Rainforest". BC Studies. 172 (172): 9–33 – via ProQuest. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Kim, In-Ae; Trosper, Ronald L.; Mohs, Gordon (September 2012). "Cultural uses of non-timber forest products among the Sts'ailes, British Columbia, Canada". Forest Policy and Economics. 22: 40–46 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  3. ↑ Manero, Ana; Taylor, Kat; Nikolakis, William; Adamowicz, Wiktor; Marshall, Virginia; Spencer-Cotton, Alaya; Nguyen, Mai; Grafton, R. Quentin (2022). "A systematic literature review of non-market valuation of Indigenous peoples' values: Current knowledge, best-practice and framing questions for future research". Ecosystem Services. Volume 54: 1 – via Science Direct.
  4. ↑ Jain, Neha (October 26th, 2020). "Cultural beliefs protect snakes in the dwindling sacred groves of southwestern India". Mongabay. Retrieved December 8th 2024. Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  5. ↑ Malhotra, Kailash C.; Chatterjee, Sudipto; Gokhale, Yogesh (June 2001). "CULTURAL AND ECOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF SACRED GROVES IN INDIA" (PDF). Indian National Science Academy.
  6. ↑ "Sacred Groves". 03-01-2018. Retrieved 08-12-2024. |first= missing |last= (help); Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  7. ↑ Pandey, Deep N. (2003). "Sacred Forestry: The Case of Rajasthan, India" (PDF). Indian Forest Service.
  8. ↑ Ray, Rajasri; Ramachandra, T. V. (2010). "Small sacred groves in local landscape: are they really worthy for conservation?". Current Science. Volume 98 – via JSTOR.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Mako, Paine Eulalia (08 November 2024). "A Pathway to Climate Resilience for Indigenous Communities in Tanzania". International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Retrieved Sunday, December 8th 2024. Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  10. ↑ Raycraft, Justin (February 2021). "The (un)making of marine park subjects: Environmentality and everyday resistance in a coastal Tanzanian village". World Development. Volume 126 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Kelly, Boutsalis (Sept. 20, 2020). "The art of fire: reviving the Indigenous craft of cultural burning". The Narwhal. Retrieved Sunday, December 8th 2024. Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Sts'ailes "Xa'Xa Temexw Te Sts'ailes Land Code" (PDF) April 17, 2018. Retrived November 29, 2024.
  13. ↑ "Willie Charlie, CAO, Sts'ailes Coast Salish First Nation, BC Ep.25". iHeart. June 2, 2021.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Price, Karen; Roburn, Audrey; MacKinnon, Andy (2009). "Ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest". Forest Ecology and Management. 258 (4): 495–503 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Tran, Tanya C. (26 November 2020). "'"Borders don't protect areas, people do": insights from the development of an Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area in Kitasoo/Xai'xais Nation Territory"'". Facets.
  16. ↑ Morgan, Vanessa Sloan (27 February 2020). "'"Why would they care?": Youth, resource extraction, and climate change in northern British Columbia, Canada"". Canadian Geographies.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Muir, Brian (July 2022). ""Consequences and implications of British Columbia's failed cumulative effects assessment and management framework for Indigenous peoples"". Science Direct.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Gislason, Maya K (18 October 2016). ""The Interacting Axes of Environmental, Health, and Social Justice Cumulative Impacts: A Case Study of the Blueberry River First Nations"". mdpi.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 Diggon, Steve (August 2022). ""The Marine Plan Partnership for the North Pacific Coast – MaPP: A collaborative and co-led marine planning process in British Columbia"". Science Direct.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Townsend, Justine (06 December 2023). ""Indigenous and decolonial futures: Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas as potential pathways of reconciliation"". frontiers. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 HFNCommunications (2019–4). "ƛ̓aaqačiƛukqin nisma (Growth of our land)". Youtube. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Mausel, D. L.; Waupochick, A.; Pecore, M. ""Menonimee Forestry": Past, Present, Future". Journal of Forestry. 5. Text "pages 366-369 " ignored (help)
  23. ↑ {{cite article |organisation=Tree Foundation |date=2024 |title=“Then & now!”: Julia Butterfly Hill |doi=https://treesfoundation.org/2021/07/julia-butterfly-hill/ }}
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 {{cite article |date=2024 |title:Logging, climate crisis killing the great Cedar forests of Vancouver Island |publisher=APTN Our Stories |doi=https://www.aptnnews.ca/ourstories/logging-climate-crisis-killing-the-great-cedar-forests/ }}
  25. ↑ { cite article |last=Nordseth |first=A. |date=2021 |title=What are Old-Growth Forests and why are they important? |publisher=Treehugger |doi=https://www.treehugger.com/what-are-old-growth-forests-5120050}}


Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
 This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200. It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2024WT1/Impacts_of_Indigenous_non-monetary_valuation_of_forest_products_on_forest_conservation&oldid=853800"