Table 2. Potential benefits from, and obstacles to, Aboriginal commitment to forest certification.
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
Where applicable
|
|
|
|
Benefits |
Increased control over forest management and involvement in decision making
(Collier et al. 2002, National Aboriginal Forestry Association
1996) |
|
Traditional territory
|
|
Greater protection of non-timber forest products (Collier et al.
2002) |
|
Traditional territory
|
|
Potential for economic benefit and capacity building for Aboriginal
communities (Collier et al. 2002, Yukon Conservation Society
2003) |
Reserve land
|
Traditional territory
|
|
Improved relationship with the forest industry (Collier et al. 2002,
National Aboriginal Forestry Association 1996) |
|
Traditional territory
|
|
Forest certification supplements governmental requirements when there is no
regulation on Aboriginal rights (National Aboriginal Forestry Association 1996,
Tollefson 2003, Smith 2004). |
|
Traditional territory
|
Obstacles
|
The approach to Aboriginal peoples as a special stakeholder differs by
standard (Collier et al. 2002, Stevenson and Webb
2003, Smith 2004).
|
|
Traditional territory
|
Difficult to equalize terminology acceptable to both certification entities
and Aboriginal groups (Parsons and Prest 2003, Stevenson and Webb 2003, Natcher et al. 2005, Wyatt 2008).
|
Reserve land
|
Traditional territory
|
|
Differences between traditional ecological knowledge and SFM
indicators in content and data collection (Karjala et al. 2004, Smith 2004, Sherry
et al. 2005). |
Reserve land
|
Traditional territory
|
Possible interference of some certification standards with legal processes
establishing Aboriginal rights and title (Collier et al. 2002, Parsons
and Prest 2003).
|
Reserve land
|
Traditional territory
|
Prohibitive cost increase in both direct and indirect cost of management
(Collier et al. 2002, Mater 2005, Wyatt 2008).
|
Reserve land
|
|
|
| |
|