BC Institute for Co-operative Studies University of Victoria University House 2--Rm. 109 PO Box 3060 STN CSC Victoria BC V8V 3R4 Canada Tel: (250)472-4539 Fax: (250)472-4341 [email protected] http://web.uvic.ca/bcics

To purchase copies of this or any of the Occasional Papers series, send $6.00 to the above address. Cheques should be made payable to the University of Victoria.

The Role of Co-operatives in the Non-Timber Forest Product Industry: Exploring Issues and Options Using the Case Study of Salal (Gaultheria shallon; Ericaceae)

Wendy Cocksedge School of Environmental Studies Department of Biology University of Victoria

i ii About The Occasional Papers

The British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies will periodically publish research papers on co-operative subjects, particularly those concerned with the co-operative movement in British Columbia. The papers will be by both scholars within the academy and interested members of the public. The Institute hopes these papers will increase understanding of, and discussion about, the co-operative movement and ideas, past, present and future.

Copyright  2001 British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies.

ISSN 1497-729X BC Institute for Co-operative Studies Occasional Papers. (Print)

ISSN 1497-7303 BC Institute for Co-operative Studies Occasional Papers. (Online)

Any portion of these materials can be freely available for information and educational purposes, but cannot be re-published in any format that may entail fees or royalties without the express permission of the copyright holders.

British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies University of Victoria University House 2 Room 109 PO Box 3060 STN CSC Victoria BC V8W 3R4 Tel. (250)472-4539

iii New and Forthcoming Publications

Occasional Papers Series:

Bowman, Victoria. Home Care, Home Support, Personal Assistance: the Co-operative Model and the Power of Language.

Chambers, Kimberlee. Assessing the Feasability of Applying the Co-operative Model to First Nations Community Based Development Initiatives: A Case Study of the Xaxl'ep and a Native Plant Nursery.

Cocksedge, Wendy. The Role of Co-operatives in the Non-Timber Forest Product Industry: Exploring Issues and Options Using the Case Study of Salal (Gaultheria Shallon).

Lantz, T.Z. Examining the Potential Role of Co-operatives in the Ethical Commercialisation of Medicinal Plants: Plant Conservation, Intellectual Property Rights, Ethics, and the Devil's Club (Oplopanax Horridus).

Sinats, Kristen. Health Co-operatives: A Viable Solution to the Current Crisis in Health Service Delivery.

Tatlay, Upkar-Singh. A Case Study of the Rainbow Community Health Co-operative: Destigmatising Health Care. Forthcoming; Available Summer 2001

Handbooks:

Organising Forestry Co-operatives in British Columbia: A Handbook. Produced by the Environmental Law Centre for BCICS.

Organising Fishery Co-operatives in British Columbia: A Handbook.Produced by the Environmental Law Centre for BCICS.

iv Preface

The British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies, among its various activities, is engaged in the preparation of studies into existing and new co-operatives of use to the people of British Columbia. Whenever possible, it seeks to help students and faculty interested in expanding their research interests to include consideration of the application of the co-operative model within the province.

The Institute, therefore is very pleased to have been able to assist Wendy Cocksedge in undertaking research into the role of co-operatives in the non-timber forest products industry. The paper is partly the result of work already undertaken by Ms. Cocksedge as part of her graduate studies within the School of Environmental Studies under the supervision of Dr. Nancy Turner. We are greatful to Dr. Turner and her colleagues in Environmental Studies for their contributions to the development of the research on which this study has been built.

Dr. Ian MacPherson Professor of History, Director, British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies

v vi Table of Contents

Introduction...... 1 A brief overview of the NTFP industry...... 2 i) Salal (Gaultheria shallon): a case study...... 3 Issues in the current system of NTFP resource management in British Columbia ...... 5 Current and potential solutions...... 6 i)Governmentally imposed regulation...... 6 ii) Community resource stewardship; self-regulation...... 8 iii) First Nations resource stewardship...... 13 The role of co-operatives in community stewardship of NTFPs...... 16 The potential role of First Nations’ co-operatives in NTFPs...... 17 Co-operative opportunities in and enhancement of the salal industry...... 19 i) The salal industry - a brief overview...... 19 ii) Community support and awareness...... 21 iii) Education and Training...... 22

iv) Marketing and Risk...... 24 v) Certification...... 26 Potential difficulties of NTFP Co-operatives...... 30 Future Potential...... 37 Notes...... 32 Appendix 1...... 33 References...... 36

vii viii Foreword

Co-operative Arrangements in Non-Timber Forest Product Harvesting, Marketing and Regulations

Timber harvesting in British Columbia has been reduced, resulting in fewer jobs in the conventional forest industry. Other resource-based industries such as fishing and mining are also declining. As a consequence, many rural communities, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, are searching for ways to to diversify and stabilise their economic bases. Harvesting and marketing Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) has been identified as a major alternative or complement to timber harvesting and other resource industries. Over 200 identified NTFPs are known to be harvested commercially in British Columbia, bringing in an estimated $80 million or more from products such as salal greens, wild mushrooms and forest medicinal and culinary plants.

In 1996, Forest Renewal BC sponsored a two-year study to investigate the potential for harvesting and marketing wild berries as a NTFP in British Columbia (Carr et al. 1997; Mitchell and Turner 1998). Among its recommendations, this study identified the potential advantages of co-operative arrangements if wild-berry marketing initiatives were to proceed. Since wild-berry production is highly variable from year to year and from region to region, an approach that provides flexibility and spreads the risk of low production in a given year and at a given locality by multiplying the opportunities for accessing berries was seen to be desirable.

Because wild berries are ripe and available for only a relatively short duration mostly over the summer and early fall, wild-berry picking as a single economic activity has definite seasonal limitations. Berry harvesting, however, would fit well into a broader harvesting regime for NTFPs and Special Forest Products, including wild greens for the floral industry (available all seasons), specialty wood products, such as shakes and shingles, and firewood (year-round), seeds and cuttings for ornamental and nursery trade (summer, fall), wild mushrooms (late summer, fall, and early spring, depending upon species harvested, latitude and elevation), wild medicinal and neutriceutical products (mostly spring through fall), and wild boughs, trees and other greens for the winter/Christmas market (fall to pre-Christmas season). Pickers, buyers and marketers of all of these products, under a co-ordinated co-operative system encompassing a range of products harvested over a broad, diversified landbase, could develop complementary harvesting and marketing plans that could yield a predictable, reasonably stable income for many people. Related to harvesting of wild plant resources, are a range of activities that could best be described as ecological agriculture or agroforestry, in which native species are propagated and grown in semi-natural conditions, to enhance their availability and productivity. Products of ecoagriculture would also fit in well to the co-operative model of NTFP harvesting and marketing.

At the same time, there is an absolute requirement for careful conservation of forest products and wildlife and their associated lands, and for the recognition of intellectual property rights of Indigenous and local peoples. Various harvesting activities and their cumulative impacts could best be tracked, assessed and regulated through co-operative arrangements, with some type of specific land entitlement or licensing that would assist monitoring and adaptive management. This would facilitate conservation of the products, and ensure that those people in local communities, especially First Nations communities which have a long tradition of sustainable use of many such products, would have the benefit of participation in planning and decision-making. Their views would count and they would receive positive returns from their contributions. As well, with many, diverse participants within a co-operative, there would be a wider knowledge base to support wiser, more informed decision-making.

Harvesting benefits in co-operative ventures would accrue not to some outside controller or company, but to local communities. Co-operatives are community-oriented, and they give people a sense of identity, of working together,

ix and of positive shared experience. Members of co-operatives can help each other, can educate each other, and can help to bring mutual appreciation and understanding to issues of equity and sustainability. The whole system, with shared contributions, shared input, and shared understandings, would be more equitable, and would be more focused on long-term environmental health and quality of life in communities, not on quick, short-term profits. Co-operatives are social, not just financial, institutions. Cultural values rather than quick profits motivate most co-operative members. Environmental values, too, including the well-being of other lifeforms needing to use the lands and their resources, would be expected to take precedence over the “profits-now” imperative.

Co-operatives and the networks they sustain would also facilitate research, training and education in matters such as ecoforestry, agroforestry, sustainable harvesting techniques, plant propagation and enhancement, marketing and product development, and quality control of products. They would also assist participants in obtaining certification for their products, as well as in advertising and marketing. Other, related activities, including culturally appropriate interpretive workshops and ecotourism ventures could also be organised through a co-operative structure.

For all these reasons, co-operatives would seem to be an optimal arrangement for the sustainable and equitable harvesting and marketing of NTFPs. Furthermore, there are good reasons why such co-operative services should be controlled in large part by First Peoples. As well as having proprietorship over Reserve lands throughout the province, British Columbia First Peoples are in the process of regaining some control and management authority over an extensive land base through Treaty negotiations. Thus they may well have jurisdiction over and use of a very broad landbase encompassing more of their traditional territories. Many First Nations may wish to practice ecoforestry or alternative forestry as opposed to large-scale clear-cutting as the forest management method of choice. Such management systems work well in conjunction with harvesting NTFPs and Special Forest Products, as well as selective timber harvesting. As the original users of a wide range of forest products, many First Peoples also have considerable knowledge and experience in the use, harvesting and management of NTFPs. They would also then be the ones to choose what types of traditional knowledge they may wish to share with others.

These ideas have been discussed at several major conferences on NTFPs, including those held at Alert Bay, B.C. (“Non-Timber Forest Products: A Workshop.” Inner Coast Natural Resource Center, April 1998; Ambers et al. 1998); at Kenora, Ontario (“Forest Communities in the Third Millenium; Linking Research, Business and Policy towards a Sustainable Non-Timber Forest Product Sector”, October 1-4, 1999) and Creston, B.C. (“Non-Timber Forest Products Workshop”, Ktunaxa Kinbasket Treaty Council, Yaqan Nukiy, May, 2000). Interest has been expressed in developing such co-operatives in a number of First Nations communities. The Wilp Sa Maa’y Wild Harvesting Co-operative, based in Smithers, B.C. is an example of a regional co-operative with substantive participation by First Nations people, working together with non-First Nations in a successful collaborative venture.

Admittedly, an arrangement as complex and far-reaching as a harvesting and marketing co-operative, for example the Wilp Sa Maa’y Wild Harvesting Co-op (Burton 1999), is potentially more complicated to develop and administer than a hierarchically organised company with a CEO to make all the decisions. Still, the benefits, in my view, far outweight the difficulties.

There are many concerns regarding the socio-economic and ecological sustainability of the NTFP industry. At the government levels, particularly in Canada, research and regulations are currently insufficient to ensure the proper stewardship of the forest resources. Co-operatives may be part of a solution to access and apply the available knowledge on sustainable harvesting practices, while also ensuring that forest-based communities maintain their autonomy over their land and themselves.

Wendy Cocksedge's paper discusses how the co-operative model can provide British Columbians with a viable method of organising non-timber forest products ventures. NTFPs play a significant role in the Pacific Northwest economy, and their importance continues to increase every year. Salal (Gaultheria shallon) is currently considered

x one of the most economically important species of this industry, because of its use as a decorative green in the florist industry because of its attractive evergreen leaves and abilities for long term storage.

Wendy's well-researched and thoughtful paper is one of three linked case studies that discuss the potential benefits of co-operative arangements, with special reference to First Nations (see also Chambers, 2001; Lantz, 2001).

I am hopeful that these examples will form the seeds of an idea that will grow and benefit both the peoples and the forests of British Columbia.

Nancy J. Turner School of Environmental Studies University of Victoria January 31, 2001

Ambers, Lawrence, Ron Klotz, Darcy A. Mitchell, and Nancy J. Turner (editors). Non-Timber Forest Products Workshop Proceedings, April 3-5, 1998. Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre, Alert Bay, B.C. and University of Victoria; 68 pp.

Burton, Carla. 1999 . Starting a non-timber forest products enterprise; the Wilp Sa Maa'y harvesting co-operative. Ecoforestry, 14, 20-23.

Carr, Michelle, Nancy J. Turner, Darcy Mitchell, and Susanne Thiessan. 1997. A report on the University of Victoria non-timber forest products study. Menziesia; Newsletter for the Native Plant Society of British Columbia 3 (1): 4-6.

Chambers, Kimberlee. 2001. Assessing the Feasability of Applying the Co-operative Model to First Nations Community Based Initiatives: A Case Study of the Xaxl'ep and a Native Plant Nursery. British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies. Occasional Paper.

Cocksedge, Wendy. 2001. The Role of Co-operatives in the Non-timber Forest Product Industry: Exploring Issues and Options Using the Case Study of Salal (Gaultheria shallon; Ericaceae). British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies. Occasional Paper.

Lantz, Trevor C. 2001. Examining the Potential Role of Co-operatives in the Ethical Commercialization of Medicinal Plants: Plant Conservation, Intellectual Property Rights, Ethics, and Devil’s Club (Oplopanax horridus). British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies. Occasional Paper.

Mitchell, Darcy and Nancy J. Turner. 1998. Final Report: Wild Berry Products: Marketing Potential in Southwestern British Columbia. FRBC (HQ96137-RE, FR-96/97- 286), School of Environmental Studies and School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C.

xi Acknowledgements

Thanks and acknowledgement to the many people in the industry who took the time to discuss some of the issues surrounding salal and NTFP harvesting - Rick Ross, John Kopetzky, Bob Geary, Tim Brigham, Larry Nusbaum, Darlene Cump, Sinclair Tedder, and Darcy Mitchell. Special thanks to Nancy Turner for all of her support and guidance and to the British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies and Global Forests Foundation (GF-18-2000-84) for financial assistance.

xii BCICS Occasional Papers 2

The Role of Co-operatives in the Non-Timber Forest Product Industry: exploring issues and options using the case study of salal

1. Introduction

The development of both the non-timber forest product (NTFP) 'Salal... is currently consid- industry and co-operative organisations can allow communities in British ered the second largest Columbia to have an increased input into and control over their forest land- commercial NTFP in British base and economies. Combining these activities could be an even more Columbia.' powerful tool: communities participating in co-operatives not only share valuable local knowledge of the forest resources, but also they can more effectively apply pressure on governments and industry to ensure true multiple use of forest ecosystems. Community co-operatives, as an integral part of the system around them, are much more likely to evoke change in resource-use practices than the remote entities of governments. The promotion of co-operative values of community concern and ecological stability further their position in the public eye, and increase the awareness of and demand for sustainable forestry practices, particularly in the area of NTFPs. Berkes, Kislaloglu, Folke and Gadgil (1998) stated, “movements combining values and beliefs with ecological concepts are more likely to succeed in making ecosystem a transforming concept, as compared to the use of the science of ecology alone” (p. 413). In this paper I raise some of the issues and opportunities, which exist for NTFP co-operatives in the Pacific Northwest. I look at how the concepts of NTFP harvesting and co-operatives can each help to enable the other. Although many of the concepts discussed here apply to the Pacific Northwest NTFP industry in general, I focus on salal, one of the leading commercial NTFPs.

1 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

2. A brief Overview of the Non-Timber Forest Products Industry Most definitions of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) recognise all 'The commercial potential of biological resources of the forest, excluding volume timber, and often include the NTFP industry has led to a any derived services, such as ecotourism (FAO, 1995; SmartWood, 1999). sort of "gold rush mentality." Many of the forest plants and animals classed as NTFPs have been used for In turn, this commercial attention is leading to an thousands of years by indigenous peoples, but most have gained large-scale inevitable strain on the commercial importance only in the last two decades. This increasing attention species and their ecosystams, has both positive and negative aspects for the forests and their resident human which may already be communities. affected by other human activites, such as logging, One of the main advantages of the use of NTFPs is the possibility of mining, agricultural decreasing our dependency on timber and large scale logging for revenue, development, and thus promoting a more sustainable source of income for forest-based urbanisation.' communities. If NTFPs prove to be economically significant in the market, as appears to increasingly be the case, the various groups supporting balanced multiple-use of forests and sustainability of forest practices will be in a better position to lobby for changes in the current forest practices and tenure systems. NTFPs also present the opportunity for an expression of traditional1 indigenous forest practices where community needs are met through the diverse use of the forests (FAO, 1995). The development in awareness and acceptance of traditional views is of particular importance to cultural values, not only for revitalising and maintaining traditional indigenous cultures, but also in fostering a connection to the land for non-indigenous societies. However, the western development of the NTFP industry, although fairly recent, has proceeded at such a pace as to outstrip the knowledge, institutions, regulations, and procedures, which should surround it. The commercial potential of the NTFP industry has led to a sort of “gold rush mentality.” In turn, this commercial attention is leading to an inevitable strain on the species and their ecosystems, which may already be affected by other human activities, such as logging, mining, agricultural development, and urbanisation (de Gues, 1995). The increasing number of individuals using the forests, combined with this diminishing resource base, is resulting in conflicts among the various users (FAO, 1995; NNRG, Internet; Ross, 1998).

2 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

In the Pacific Northwest, there are a few NTFPs that typify this commercial leap into recognition. One example is salal, which is currently considered the second largest commercial NTFP in British Columbia, with a sales revenue of CAN $42-45 million in 1997 (Draeseke, 1998; Wills & Lipsey, 1999).

i) Salal (Gaultheria shallon), background. Salal is a broad-leaved, bushy evergreen shrub of the heather family (Ericaceae), which grows along the coast of the Pacific Northwest, from the 55 degrees north, south to California, and as far east as the Coast and Cascade mountains (Pojar & MacKinnon, 1994; Turner, 1995). Its commercial attraction is as floral greenery. The dark green, leathery leaves are highly attractive and will last six months if properly stored. The branches are harvested from within forests where the size, growth form, colour, and quality of the leaves and branches are preferred by purchasers and their customers in the florist industry. Salal, as with other floral greens, is a bit of an anomaly in the area of NTFPs in that the commercial use of the branches and leaves for floral purposes has no traditional roots. Although the west coast peoples did use salal leaves and branches, it was much more sparingly, and for such uses as pit-cooking, flavouring food, teas, and poultices (Gunther, 1973; Turner & Efrat, 1982; Turner, Thomas, Carlson & Oglivie, 1983). Ironically, the main traditional use of salal amongst northwest coast peoples was for the sweet, edible berries, which were prized for personal consumption, gifts, and trade, and were harvested in quantity, dried, and stored for year round food use. Yet these have little commercial interest today (Turner, 1995). Salal berries do, however, continue to hold value for many indigenous and non-indigenous people for personal household use. As there is no history of such large-scale harvest of salal leaves, there has not been the long-term study of the best methods of harvest and the effects of harvest, as there have been with other traditionally used NTFPs. This use of salal is also relatively free of many of the intellectual property rights and ownership of knowledge issues, which surround other NTFPs.

3 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

Still, there are serious conflicts between those wishing to harvest the greens commercially and those wishing to harvest the fruits. There are also concerns that harvesting salal greens may impact the use of the berries by wildlife. Although floral greenery production in BC was evident in the 1930s, it was not until the 1950s that salal became the primary wild-harvested floral '[Salal] is part of a viable product. According to Rick Ross, of Western Evergreens, it now comprises economic alternative to timber harvesting, and can 95% of all floral greenery exported from Canada (Ross, 1998). Although help to enable the some salal is retailed in Canada, most of the harvest from BC is exported to retention of forests for true the United States, where it is both sold locally and further exported to Europe multiple use. ' and Asia. Some salal is also exported directly from Canada to Europe and Asia (de Gues, 1995; Ross, 1998). Local and export sales are increasing every year (de Gues, 1995; Ross, 1998). There is controversy as to the effects of harvesting salal greens on the long-term viability of the plants. There are many anecdotal reports of decreased size and vigour of plants from harvesting for floral greens, particularly in areas of easy access close to cities, but there has been very little scientific research (Turner & Cocksedge, in press). In fact, most of the research on salal has focused on its eradication due to its perceived competition with commercial timber growth. Although broad scale harvesting of branches has not been a traditional practice of First Peoples, it may still be of some benefit to both indigenous and non-indigenous forest-based communities. As noted, salal is currently one of the largest income generating NTFPs. As such, it is part of a viable economic alternative to timber harvesting, and can help to enable the retention of forests for true multiple use. It also provides an alternative and often preferred source of income for rural community members. However, there is a very real possibility of the industry following the downward productivity trend of the timber industry if the rate of ecological and social knowledge, and of restraints and regulations, continues to lag behind the rate of commercial boom.

4 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

3. Issues in the Current System of NTFP Resource Management With the NTFP goldrush, the number of harvesters in the forest is increasing, with a resulting competition for land and products. Traditionally held territory is often encroached upon by new harvesters (Craig, 1998; Richards, 1998; Turner & Cocksedge, in press). This is a particular problem for First Nations people, who may have collected plant and animal material from an area for generations, yet are now finding their resources affected or depleted by commercial harvesters. Usually, there is simply a lack of awareness of territory infringement, as many of the harvesters are migratory and unaware of local land allocation (Tedder, Mitchell & Farran, 2000; anonymous local, Haida Gwaii, personal communication, 1999). Lack of awareness of sustainable methods of harvesting by the new pickers further increases the problem, as it changes the management of the ecosystem and often leads to closure of access by local landowners and managers. The combined increase of harvesters and decrease of land-base further strains the remaining resources (Freed, 1996). This sense that the NTFP industry is running rampant in some areas has resulted in demands from many sectors in BC - both within and outside of the industry - for effective regulation and management of non-timber forest products (Schnepf, 1994; Tedder et al., 2000; von Hagen & Fight, 1999; Youds, 1999). Currently, there is no legislation in British Columbia that deals with NTFPs. Although there is provision under the Forest Practices Code, no regulations have yet been enacted, with exceptions of Cascara and Yew (de Geus, 1995). Thus, there are no provincially enabled restrictions on the harvesting of NTFPs on the provincial forest land-base. Public harvesting is prohibited on some lands, such as park, Indian Reserve, and privately owned or leased lands unless with expressed consent, but illegal harvesting often still occurs. The implications of this are that on provincial forestlands there are no limits to the amount of a species that may be removed, nor in the way in which it is removed. Further, as no provincial permits are required, there is no

5 BCICS Occasional Papers 2 record of the volumes or species that are being harvested either for private or commercial use. Therefore, under the current system, it is difficult if not impossible to ensure that harvesting is being done in a sustainable manner. Of perhaps greater concern is the question of what is sustainable. With neither records nor monitoring of activities in the forest, it is not possible to judge the immediate or cumulative effects of types and levels of harvesting. Any research done is somewhat irrelevant if there is no incentive or enforcement of practices. '...under the current system, 4. Current and potential solutions it is difficult if not impossible to ensure that [salal] i) Governmentally imposed regulation harvesting is being done in a There is a continual and increasing discussion of the need to implement sustainable manner.' some sort of regulation or permitting system for NTFPs in Canada. In the United States Pacific Northwest, a permit or license is required for NTFP harvesting on federal and state lands. In some states, laws have increased in strength and coverage due to the continued occurrence of illegal and over-harvesting. In Washington and Oregon, prosecution occurs if harvesters or buyers cannot prove the legal origin of their products (Freed, 1996). Some states, such as Washington, require further haul permits for transportation to buying stations (Tedder et al., 2000). Cost and permit requirements vary greatly depending on the legislating institution. However, although the need for some type of regulation is apparent and requested, many communities do not believe that provincial or federally imposed legislation would be the most effective solution (Haley, 1997; Tedder et al., 2000). The largest user group of NTFPs are rural populations, many of who have used various forest products traditionally for employment, cultural, and social purposes (FAO, 1995). These individuals often rely heavily on access to the forests for material and income, and many have few if any alternatives for income (FAO, 1995). In British Columbia, indigenous peoples continue to use many plant and animal products from the forest, both culturally and economically (Joseph, 1998; Turner & Cocksedge, in press). Another large sector of pickers, particularly of salal, are of Asian ethnicity. Due to cultural and language difficulties, many would have difficulty finding alternative employment (Freed, 1996; picker, “Sam”2 , salal harvester, personal

6 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

communication, 2000; von Hagen & Fight, 1999). Any regulations that decrease these groups’ access to NTFPs would place an inequitable burden of cost on them. Although there may be ecological justification for restricting regulations, the social costs may prove great. It is important that any solution applied not be worse than the problem. Many members of rural communities, who have been using the forests for years, are not very receptive to imposed regulations. First Nations communities, in particular, often react with suspicion to outside agencies dictating the correct method of resource management (Carpenter & Turner, 1999). It is not uncommon to find harvesters and buyers in the NTFP industry who are distrustful of government institutions. Regulations are often regarded as actions of political expediency rather than justifiable measures of ecological and community protection (McLain & Jones, 1999; Tedder et al., 2000). This distrust, combined with a frustration due to government intervention in their affairs and a lack of alternatives, often results in a lack of compliance. Jungwirth and Brown (1997) sum this up: If people are locked out, they will become outlaws. And this is true globally. If poor people can’t continue legally gathering the products they’ve customarily harvested, they will enter illegally. Changing access rights makes people illegal when they continue the activities they have been doing for decades. (p. 98) This situation is exacerbated by the limited involvement of community members, harvesters and buyers in the development of regulations. Without adequate consideration of these groups’ body of knowledge, particularly as much of the information is locally specific, the harvesters may be correct in assuming that the regulations are not an accurate reflection of community needs. Requiring permits without change in tenure may also be frustrating for pickers. Although it allows for monitoring the harvest of forest products, it does not necessarily increase the harvesters’ access to a secure harvest. TimberWest, a timber company leasing land just outside of Victoria, dispenses permits that allow use of access roads. This type of regulation, however, has

7 BCICS Occasional Papers 2 not decreased the competition over resources within the forest, as many permits are issued and many harvesters continue to enter on foot. Harvesters continue to have little incentive to harvest sustainably when many competing harvesters 'It is the community, not the are picking on the same land area (Tedder et al., 2000). Further, as many government officials, who are pickers are at the low end of the income scale, fees may prove prohibitive intimately involved with the and essentially remove this option of employment from them. forests.' Imposed regulation, though well meaning, may ultimately be detrimental to the community and its forests (Berkes, 1994; FAO, 1995). Community involvement is important in order to engage the community as stakeholders in their natural resources, both ecologically and economically. Without communities having real input into management decisions, the final regulations will not be trusted as being the best method of stewardship. As Fikret Berkes (1994) states; Local-level systems tend to have a large moral and ethical context: there is no separation between nature and culture, and, to some, nature is imbued with sacredness. All of the foregoing features contrast with state-level scientific management, which is characterised by disembeddedness, universality, instrumentalism, and the separation of the user from the manager, nature from culture, and the objective data from the subjective. (p.18) In other words, it is the community, not the government officials, who are intimately involved with the forests. Both the geographical closeness and, for many, the interaction through personal or commercial use of the various forest plants and animals lend a connection and awareness, which government officials are often lacking. ii) Community resource stewardship; self-regulation One could suggest that the situation of the NTFP industry is being regarded by policy makers as a “tragedy of the commons.” This theory, advanced by Garrett Hardin in 1968, suggests that if there is free and open access to land and resources, there will eventually and inevitably be resource depletion. Adherence to this concept would make it necessary for government

8 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

to remove open access and impose regulation of the resources, or privatise them. However, the tragedy of the commons could actually be attributed, to some extent, to the lack of “commons” - that is, the provincial control of the lands. As David Haley (1997) writes: Forest policy in British Columbia has largely divorced the people of the province from a direct role in the stewardship of the resource, which, for many, provide their livelihood, their living space and their source of recreation and inspiration. Yet, throughout the world, greater local autonomy in resource management is becoming a cornerstone of sustainable development policies and has a long tradition in many nations where forests play an important role in the welfare of the population. (pp. 5-6) The use of the forests was not traditionally, and need not now be, a system of free and open access. Most traditional stewardship involved communal control of the resources (Posey & Dutfield, 1996). This concept is explained well by Berkes (1994): Lands, waters, and animal populations used by aboriginal peoples were, and are still, non-exclusive resources and communal property. Their use requires collective decision- making and enforcement of agreed-upon rules among community members. The strong sense of community, social obligations, respect, reciprocity, and consensus decision- making, which are traditional values considered important probably by all aboriginal groups, may be seen as adaptation that have survival value in societies dependent on common- property resources. (p. 19) Although usually connected with First Nations communities, this idea of community control can and does extend to non-indigenous and mixed communities. Mixed communities on Haida Gwaii, for example, are adamant about maintaining control over the activities on their land, including both the ecological and the socio-economic aspects such as employment, training, and the development of relationships based on mutual respect (Tedder et al.,

9 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

2000). According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO, 1995), community participation is important for sustainable management of NTFPs for several reasons: 1. to recognise the full extent of local demands on the forest resource; 2. to fully consider the local knowledge of the resource that has developed over time; 3. to engage communities as stakeholders in managing the resource, ensuring their commitment to long-term management goals; 4. to engage the energies of local people in their own economic change, which can include decisions on social and cultural priorities that outsiders do not realise. (internet) Community involvement is crucial in order to recognise both the demands on and knowledge of local resources. As mentioned above, resource based, indigenous or non-indigenous community members should not be overlooked as having a critical body of knowledge for resource stewardship. Being careful not to trivialise or misrepresent the concept of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), there are some comparisons between traditional indigenous use of the forest and use by present day commercial harvesters. The following is a partial definition of TEK, written by Johnson and Ruttan (1993): TEK can generally be defined as a body of knowledge built up by a group of people through generations of living in close contact with nature. It includes a system of classification, a set of empirical observations about the local environment (often referred to as “the land”), and a system of rules or ethics that governs human behaviour and use of resources. The quantity and quality of traditional environmental knowledge varies among community members, depending upon gender, age, social status, intellectual capability, and profession. (pp. 8-9) With the unstable, quickly growing nature of the salal industry, there is a definite

10 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

variation of quantity and quality of “TEK,” or as it is often called, “local ecological knowledge” (LEK), amongst the pickers, which is reflected in many poor harvesting and land-management practices. This inconsistency should not lead, though to an assumption that the knowledge for sustainable 'Sustainable harvesting is the stewardship of salal - or other Pacific Northwest NTFPs - does not exist. practice of harvesting in such a manner that the plant is able to Salal does not have an indigenous history of floral greens use, but there is a continue to survive, thrive, and 30-year development of the commercial salal industry. Many people and regenerate communities who harvest salal also have long personal and family histories of successfully. ' working closely with natural resources. Many of the Asian pickers, for example, have traditions of interacting with primary resources, and have a knowledge and system of learning which fits easily into the Pacific Northwest NTFP industry. A Vietnamese picker, “Sam”, explained how he gathered many NTFPs for food and medicine while harvesting salal. He learned about plant properties by watching the animals, and was aware of more edible wild berries than most urban locals (Personal communication, 2000). Information on salal itself is also extensive. It is commonly accepted among the pickers that there are at least five different “types” of salal, and they know that different buyers have different preferences (Picker, “Bob”, personal communication, 2000). Protocols for the sustainable harvest3 of salal tend to be passed orally from buyers and harvesters to new harvesters, rather than documented (R. Ross, Western Evergreens, personal communication, 1999). However, not all harvesters are concerned about conserving the ecosystem, particularly the migratory pickers; that is, the pickers who travel from area to area following the NTFP supply and season.” The difficulty many communities are having relates to this influx of outsiders. For example, in indigenous communities in James Bay, the Quebec community resource base collapsed due to incursions by outsiders, but recovered once this stress was removed (Feeny et al., 1990). The most effective method for a community to regulate its resources is to have legal recognition of communal property rights and some system of closed access or tenure (Berkes, 1994; Feeny et al., 1990). This usually involves some level of co-management or political co-operation. Co-management between local bodies and governments has the potential to be very effective, as it could combine types of knowledge and

11 BCICS Occasional Papers 2 stipulate rights and responsibilities of resource stewardship (Berkes, 1994). Without co-management, attempts at local stewardship may prove ineffective. Without authority and accountability, local management plans may simply “provide illusions of empowerment” (Haley, 1997, p. 6). The Chilliwack Forest District attempted a system of permits for recreational and commercial botanical forest product harvest. These permits, however, were not enabled through provincial statutes and therefore would not legally stand if contested. Further, the permits were free of charge and therefore did not cover the costs of implementing and monitoring the regulations (Chilliwack Forest District, 1998). The permit system is no longer in place, though there is encouragement for harvesters to contact the forest district office and receive education on sustainable harvesting. There was, and continues to be, a fairly high degree of interest and compliance, indicating that proper stewardship of the forest is important to the community and its harvesters (J. Kennah, Chilliwack Forest District Manager, personal communication, 2000). Successful co-management may operate on different levels and include a number and variety of partners. For example, in Northern California two co-operatives (Trinity Alps Botanicals and the High Mountain Herb Co- operative) partnered with the US Forest Service, an NGO (the Watershed Research and Training Centre), and members of the Hupa tribe. The partnership has led to increased education and training for harvesters, NTFP regeneration trials, inventory, and the development of a Forest Service permit, which “certifies” pesticide-free NTFPs (McLain & Jones, 1999). In BC, a relatively new approach to resource co-management is through the tenure system. The Community Forest Pilot Project was initiated in 1998 as part of the Jobs & Timber Accord. This project, in its early stages, appears to represent the epitome of co-management potential between communities and government. The tenures, although small, are area-based rather than volume-based, which is essential for multiple use, and helps to address the social, economic, and ecological issues of the forest community (Friesen, 1999). The tenures are awarded for an initial five-year term, after which a long-term agreement may be negotiated (Ministry of Forests, 1999). Only seven tenures were granted in this new programme, however the

12 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

submission of proposals from 30 communities indicates that there is a great demand in community control of forest resources (Friesen, 1999).

'The involvement of iii) First Nations resource stewardship First Nations in the development of the Salal harvesting for floral purposes is not a traditional indigenous NTFP industry... is a activity, nor do Aboriginal Peoples dominate the current industry. Most of crucial issue, not only the issues of this industry apply fairly equally to indigenous and non-indigenous for the forests, but also people, and are discussed without differentiation throughout this paper. for the First Nations However, particular attention to First Nations here is deserved, as the salal peoples. ' industry is part of the larger industry of NTFPs, which in turn is part of the issue of forest stewardship. First Nations have a long and continued history with the forests, with 80% of Aboriginal communities in Canada currently residing in productive forest areas (NAFA, 1998). Any regulations or organisations developed which deal with NTFPs will ultimately affect the First Nations communities. Probably the largest issue when considering First Nations involvement in forest resource stewardship is that of Aboriginal rights and ownership. Imposed federal or provincial regulations could be problematic due to the potential overlap with Aboriginal land and harvest rights (Youds, 1999). This is an immense and complex topic, outside the realm of this paper, but I must note that many First Nations individuals, communities, and organisations are demanding full recognition of their rights in any decisions affecting the forest land-base. As stated by the National Aboriginal Forestry Association (NAFA, 1995), many First Nations communities “strive for full participation in mainstream economic activities, and most communities want to combine both contemporary and traditional forest-based activities. To create healthy local economies, Aboriginal communities see the necessity for participation in resource management and access to natural resources based on their rights” (p. 5). The involvement of First Nations in the development of the NTFP industry, including both the ecological and economic regulations, is a crucial issue, not only for the forests, but also for the First Nations peoples. Ronald Ray, Director of Economic Development for the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation,

13 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

(1998) addressed this issue in a presentation to the National Forest Congress: We are looking at ways to make this business fit in with the communities and environment of the land we live in. We are looking for ways to have viable industries that serve our needs as well as the market. Those needs are in our home communities, not in some boardroom or stock exchange thousands of kilometres away.

In the three years we have been working on this project [obtaining a Forest Management Agreement area] we have found a few basic issues that come up over and over again. These have become benchmark issues for my people, and I think for Aboriginal people across Canada in forestry.

First is tenure. If we have no guaranteed rights to the forest and its resources, then we have no way to either participate meaningfully in its management, or to profit from its richness. We see examples of this all around us. The current struggle of First Nations in the Maritimes to obtain rights to timber is an example of this principle in action. As soon as that right to tenure was recognised, businesses were formed and development started to happen for those people. Without access to resources, we can only participate from the margins.

The second of these issues is equity. We are not rich people. We are in the process of taking responsibility for our own health care and education systems. We are in the midst of providing basic services to a growing population. There are few funds left for economic development. And there are few assets to use as collateral. And here is a link back to tenure, for of course, rights to the forest can be taken to the bank to help secure equity.

14 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

The next issue for us is training. What good does it do to build a modern industrial complex if none of our people get jobs inside? Or if jobs are there, but we work only at the unskilled and low paid end of the plant? We need opportunities to be owners and managers and skilled labour in these industries. We will never have those opportunities without adequate training.

Another important issue is the ongoing community development. As I said, healthy communities are a cornerstone of our plans for the future. If all the jobs are created in some place far from our home communities, and people must leave to succeed, then what will we gain? And if the jobs that are left in our home lands are only seasonal and low paid, then the communities we live in will reflect those characteristics themselves, as they often do today.

Finally is the issue of tradition. I know that is a strange word to use for many of you, but there is no better concept for me. Aboriginal Peoples have traditional rights. We have Treaty Rights where treaties have been signed, and by the path of any logic, the same rights in general on all our traditional home lands.

We have traditional lands we consider our home lands. We have traditional knowledge of the resources we use that has been developed and passed down over the generations from our ancestors. And we have traditional uses of resources, form sustenance to medicine to ceremonies, that are hallmarks of our culture. If we lose these traditions, we fail to continue to exist as a people. And at that point we fail to continue to be ancestors, good or bad, Indian or non-Indian. (pp. 2-3) Although a long quote, I believe that Ray articulates the concerns of many of

15 BCICS Occasional Papers 2 the First Nations people and clarifies why it is important to include First Nations people in the NTFP industry.

5. The Role of Co-operatives in Community Stewardship of NTFPs According to the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA, 1996), a 'Co-operatives may provide a means by which communities co-operative is “an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to can develop and demonstrate meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through their ability to provide a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise” (p. 1). The effective resource discussion here refers to the officially registered co-operative groups. It should stewardship.' be recognised, though, that there are other systems of co-operatives, or co- operations, which may also be effective in meeting some of the goals of official co-operatives. For example, the International Model Forest Network seeks to “foster co-operation and collaboration in the advancement of management, conservation and sustainable development of forest resources, through a world- wide network of working model forests” (International Model Forest Network, Internet). A key to successful community resource stewardship is a unified community. Effective, equitable, and sustainable use of the forest at the local level must involve some sort of community organisation. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) identified several aspects of organisations which were successful in resource management, including: identification as a group, control over resource, mitigating income effects (poorer households should have equal rights to participate), recurrent interaction, reciprocity (members receive benefits if they fulfil obligations to the group), and disciplinary mechanisms (FAO, 1995). All of these characteristics lend themselves to the formation of a co-operative. Co-operatives may provide a means by which communities can develop and demonstrate their ability to provide effective resource stewardship. For example, criteria for the community forest tenure grants include community involvement, administrative authority and structure, and evidence of broad local support, all of which can be achieved through a co-operative. One of the seven, community forest tenures awarded was to the Harrop-Procter

16 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

Society. This was probably, in no small part, due to the establishment of the Harrop-Procter Community Co-operative Association. It is this co-operative, which now directly manages the tenure. Other tenures, such as the Islands Community Stability Initiative on Haida Gwaii, are in the process of developing co-operatives (Ministry of Forests, 1999). There are many examples of successful resource stewardship through the use of co-operatives, such as the fishing co-operative in New Jersey, which pooled its revenues. Although the reason for this was initially economic, it succeeded in reducing the incentive to over-fish (See Feeny et al, 1990). The formation of a co-operative has many incentives for a community, which wishes to explore and utilise the NTFPs in its forest land-base. The socio-economic and ecological benefits are closely tied and often one results in another. Co-operatives, with principles of equity, community awareness, training and co-operation, and in most cases an availability of funds, are an effective tool to provide many of the aspects necessary for sustainable development.4

6. The Potential Role of First Nations Co-operatives in NTFPs The NTFP industry presents the “perfect opportunity for Aboriginal Peoples because of the unique relationship with their landscapes and traditional knowledge about forests” (Staudinger, 1998, p. 4). Many First Nations communities have retained their values and practices regarding the forests, and the NTFP industry is not only an alternative source of employment, but a preferred one (Turner & Cocksedge, in press). First Nations also have an ethic of community-based ownership of land and resources, which fits very well with the formation of a co-operative for community enterprises. The National Aboriginal Forestry Association (1999) states five reasons why the NTFP industry is well-suited for First Nations communities: 1. access to these resources [NTFPs] is implied within existing Aboriginal rights and treaties, unlike the conventional forest industry where tenure is substantially locked up; 2. alternative trade options (direct marketing, fair trade

17 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

organisations), based upon ‘Aboriginal’ labelling, exist for some of these products; 3. many non-timber forest products can be processed in a “cottage industry” setting, meaning more local jobs and a relatively low capital investment requirement; 4. the sector is based upon intimate knowledge of the forest, and upon good resource management practices, and thus fits well within the context of Aboriginal forest knowledge and values; 5. the importance of traditional knowledge in managing this sector introduces opportunities for sharing of the elders’ knowledge and values with the younger generations. (p. iii)

Although there are First Nations communities that have retained their traditional connection with the land, there are also some which have not. Due to such catastrophes as residential schools, there has been a loss in traditional practices and knowledge in many areas. More First Nations adults are also spending time away from home and subsistence activities in order to earn wages. Community-based economic alternatives, with NTFP co-operatives being a prime example, provide a very important role in maintaining traditional cultures. Nabhan (1998) writes, It has been argued that traditional farming, hunting and gathering skills are no longer needed for survival as they once were. Yet some communities have recognized that such family- based activities serve as the most important vehicles for teaching native language, traditional stories and community values that reinforce a distinctive sense of place. (p. 1) There are a number of First Nations co-operatives that exist in the Pacific Northwest, such as the Many Hands Co-operative in Cranbrook and the Wilp Sa Ma'ay Harvesting Co-operative in the Hazelton area, though there are no known First Nations salal co-operatives. As salal floral greens harvest is not a traditional practice, First Nations may not be as culturally predisposed to this industry as to other NTFP industries. Andrew Chapeskie, with the

18 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

Taiga Institute (1996), raised some questions on commercial wild mushroom picking which may be applicable to salal harvesting. These questions included, “Would First Nations ‘pickers’ or ‘buyers/distributors’ be culturally pre- disposed to become engaged in this practice?” and, “What role does territoriality play here and what are its key features in any given setting?” (p. 6). However, there is a potential for the harvest to reflect some values and practices of traditional communal gathering, providing an opportunity to both teach and learn about the traditional knowledge of the local environment.

7. Co-operative opportunities in and enhancement of the salal industry i) The salal industry - an overview The salal industry, similar to other NTFP industries, exists in a tier, with a large number of harvesters, fewer buyers, yet fewer processors, and a small number of exporters (Draeseke, 1998; Theissen, 1998). Unlike the wild mushroom industry, there are a number of wholesalers world-wide for salal, which makes it easier to gain access into the industry (R. Ross, Western Evergreens, personal communication, 2000). Sometimes the harvester or buyer will sell directly to local retailers. This is advantageous as often a better price is received, however most retail purchasers, and certainly the wholesalers, require a guaranteed, consistent volume, which may be difficult for an individual or small business to fulfil. Salal can be picked almost year round, except for a couple of months in the spring when the buds are flushing. Harvesters pick, sort, and bundle the salal in the forest, and will normally take the harvest to a buyer at the end of each day, or at the end of every few days if they have a means of temporary storage. There is little loyalty in the business: the buyer paying the highest rate per bundle will attract the most harvesters, though there is usually very little if any price differentiation between buyers. Harvesters are paid immediately, usually in cash. A picker can make between $80 and $100 per day, depending on ability, experience, and access to lucrative areas. (J. Kopetzky, Washington Evergreen Co-operative, personal communication, 2000; R. Ross, personal communication, 1999)

19 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

A salal co-operative is different in that the separation between tiers is not as distinct. The price paid to the picker is not a flat rate, but rather based on the final sales of the product. The system can work in a number of different ways, but normally pickers are paid an initial wage when they bring in their 'Co-operatives provide an easy entry into the NTFP industry. harvest, and then are further supplemented after the final sale, which may be The opportunity exists for every month or few months. Washington Evergreen Co-op, in the United community members to become States, was initiated because harvesters wanted to receive more money for part of an established business their product. The initial system was one where harvesters were paid on a where, with little personal input or risk except for time, an consignment basis. However, there was difficulty both with separating and individual is assured of some keeping track of the ownership of the salal bundles (limited space) and the level of income.' lack of immediate funds to give to the harvesters. The system was changed to a more communal one, which pays pickers up-front then supplements their income once sales revenues are formalised, usually within one month. The extra income is usually around 10% of a harvester’s initial earnings (J. Kopetzky, personal communication, 2000). Some smaller co-ops may have difficulty providing funds to the harvesters prior to the sale of the product. In these cases it is not uncommon for harvesters to forgo the extra 10% for the convenience of immediate payment (J. Kopetzky, personal communication, 2000; R. Ross, personal communication, 2000.). One of the difficulties, which exist within the NTFP industry, is that the resources tend to be seasonal and cyclical, which makes it a poor employment alternative for individuals. Co-operatives provide a possible solution by increasing potential for resource storage, transportation, and producing value-added products. The sharing of costs, or use of the general co-op revenue, could provide for the purchase of space or refrigeration units, which would allow for greater independence from the market conditions. This could also serve to decrease transportation costs, as materials could be stored until in sufficient volume to transport (Freed & Davis, 1997). Cost is also greatly decreased for the individual harvester who does not have to drive in search of a buyer.

20 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

ii) Community support and awareness One of the main incentives of a community owned and operated co- op, with a system of mutual stewardship of the forest, is that there may be an increased level of awareness and utilisation of the various species of the forest. The co-operative provides an easy entry into the NTFP industry. The opportunity exists for community members to become part of an established business where, with little personal input or risk except for time, an individual is assured of some level of income. This avenue is very important in the Pacific Northwest, where employment in the logging industry is decreasing, and an alternate source of sustainable employment is very much in need (Hammett & Chamberlain, 1998). This use of NTFPs could potentially extend far beyond economic benefits, as people increase their interaction with and appreciation of the forests. Also, with a collective of individuals having similar interests, there is the opportunity for a high level of informal education through the sharing of experiences and knowledge. Although important to all communities, this may be of particular importance in First Nations communities, where the time in the woods would allow for the traditional methods of storing telling and education to occur. Another incentive is the decrease of harvesting competition among the community. Traditionally, most harvesting practices were communal, and continue to be so with many indigenous peoples. Some co-operatives completely share the total harvest, regardless of the individual input, such as the New Jersey fishing co-operative mentioned earlier. Most co-operatives, however, operate on a system where the benefit received is based on the energy invested. For example, the Wilp Sa Maa’y Harvesting Co-operative pays its harvesters per volume of wild berries picked. However, with Wilp Sa Maa’y, all harvesters must be members of the co-operative, and all members have a stake in the overall profit of the co-op. It is therefore in the best interest of the members to follow sustainable harvesting practices. Further, as all harvesters are members of one unifying group, there is a greater sense of cohesiveness and less competitive animosity. The cohesive nature of co- op harvesters is particularly important in NTFP industries such as salal and

21 BCICS Occasional Papers 2 wild mushrooms, where there have been many reports of territorial disputes and violence between pickers (Chamberlain et al, 1998; B. Geary, Copperbush Seeds, personal communication, 2000). iii) Education and Training “Community education develops future capacity for informed participants” (FAO, 1994, Internet). An important function of a co-operative is to provide a forum for exchange of information. This can be done formally through specific training courses, or informally through discussion. Harvesters are often hesitant about sharing information on location, volumes or income, as they are wary of potential competition, regulations, or fees (Hammett & Chamberlain, 1998; Tedder et al, 2000). A co-operative provides a more secure arena in which information can be shared and utilised communally. As an NTFP co-operative is comprised of people with both similar and diverse interests and backgrounds, the combined knowledge could be a very powerful tool for resource stewardship. Training within co-operatives provides both socio-economic and ecological benefits. Ecologically, sustainable harvesting and stewardship training is essential for all participants in the NTFP industry. Due to the regulation and tenure issues discussed above, there is currently a lack of both incentive to practice stewardship and available stewardship training. Co- operatives have the potential to fill both needs. Training could also provide a level of confidence and awareness, which may not be otherwise available. All members of a community NTFP co-operative have a stake in ensuring sustainable harvesting practices and maintaining high levels of product quality, as this will ensure current and future incomes. Further, if members are harvesting from their own community forests, there is a desire to maintain the forest for other values, such as aesthetic, recreational, and cultural. Time or money for training is therefore considered an investment, which will see economic, ecological, and social returns. As a group, it is more feasible, economically, to provide effective and perhaps extensive training. For example, the co-operative could hire a consulting group to instruct in sustainable harvesting techniques, land stewardship, marketing, or organisation. There

22 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

are a number of groups that work specifically with small businesses in the NTFP industry. One example of a training organisation is the Northwest Natural Resource Group (NNRG), a non-profit conservation organisation located in 'A co-operative could function Washington State (Appendix 1). The goal of NNRG is to help facilitate a not only to educate members truly socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable NTFP industry. They but also various industry provide a system of training and monitoring of harvesters, which is accompanied participants outside of their by a granting of a level of certification. In order to increase market and land immediate group.' access for the harvesters and buyers, NNRG has partnered with a variety of organisations, including Shorebank Enterprise Pacific (provides marketing expertise and contacts), Ecotrust Canada, the Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters, the US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, and the Rainforest Alliance/SmartWood (an accredited certifier for the Forest Stewardship Council). As the cost of the program ranges from US$1500 - 3500 for a group, a co-op would be in a better position to undertake the expense than would a non-unified collection of harvesters. Trained co-operative harvesters have a far greater opportunity of accessing private lands. For example, a NTFP co-operative in Aberdeen, Washington began training harvesters in 1995. The training, as with NNRG, included not only harvesting techniques but also land and resource management: how to do plant identification, resource inventories, and silvicultural work. As a result, private-land, forest land managers opened access to the certified harvesters, the Watershed Council opened discussion on long-term leases, and the Quinault Indian reservation started its own buying station (Freed, 1996). A co-operative could function not only to educate members but also various industry participants outside of their immediate group. There are a few alliances and associations that, although not technically co-operatives, provide an example of how this might work. The Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters in the US Pacific Northwest began as a forum for people with a variety of forest-based occupations and ethnic backgrounds, in order to discuss problems and issues. The Alliance has not only raised awareness and discussion amongst members, but has also been successful in changing policy.

23 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

In 1998, the Alliance arranged meetings with the US Forest Service and wild mushroom harvesters, which resulted in increased harvester input into Forest Service regulations and an increase in the wild mushroom season in some of the National Forests in Oregon (McLain & Jones, 1999). iv) Marketing and Risk Although the discussion here assumes a market co-operative, the suggestions to encourage small or large-scale economic development of NTFPs are not meant to ignore or diminish other potential and real values of the forest. The exploration of NTFPs for cultural, recreational, ecological and health reasons are at least as important as the economic necessity. The salal industry, although relatively new in the public eye, has been operating in British Columbia for 30 years. Most of the businesses dealing with salal are well established both with the harvesters and the purchasers. New companies (buyers/processors) are constantly being formed, though many of these last only a short time in the industry (Brigham, 1998). The competition among the buyers and exporters is fairly high (R. Ross, personal communication, 2000). A co-operative encourages local entrepreneurship by dispersing risk and providing a communal input of resources (Wills & Lipsey, 1999). According to Carla Burton (1999), one of the founders of the Wilp Sa Maa’y Harvesting Co-operative, “co-operatives are a good way to start a business enterprise with limited start-up funds, because they make use of a community’s diversity, existing infrastructure, and commitment to place. Members are encouraged to contribute what they can: money, time, facilities, expertise and ideas” (p. 22). Co-operatives have the potential for superior purchasing power and market access. It is important, however, that members be aware of the requirements of the industry in order to achieve success. To attract and maintain both harvesters and purchasers, the co-operative must demonstrate stability and trustworthiness. Quality and quantity of supply must be assured to the purchaser, and good returns to the harvesters (Environmental Law Centre, 2000; Freed & Davis, 1997; R. Ross, personal communication, 2000).

24 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

Purchasers are aware that quality is important to co-op members, as a co-op picker’s income depends on the final purchaser. Receiving a higher price per bundle or ensuring repeated sales increases the dividends to the harvesters. At the Burnaby Flower Auction, at least 60% of the purchasers will base their choice on quality rather than price and will purchase preferentially from certain sellers (D. Cump, United Flower Growers, personal communication, 2000). As competition is high and it is generally acknowledged that competing with large industry products will be difficult due to economies of 'A co-operative is in a scale, the most effective method of ensuring economic success is for the co- position to develop and operative to find methods of differentiating themselves from others in the promote not only a product industry (Thomas & Schumann, 1993; Wills & Lipsey, 1999). A co-operative but also a concept and a is in a position to develop and promote not only a product but also a concept value.' and a value. There is an increasing awareness of the many issues surrounding industry, particularly the forest industry, and there is a growing market for products produced by socially and environmentally conscious organisations (FAO, 1995; Posey & Dutfield, 1996; Tedder et al., 2000; Theissen, 1998). Therefore, co-operatives should market themselves as well as the product when looking for new purchasers. The benefits of such marketing extend beyond the economic; promoting the co-operative values can also help to raise awareness among consumers. Value-added processing provides a more sustainable use of resources, requiring fewer resources for the same return. With salal, the potential for value-added products is more limited than with other NTFPs, but still exists. One method is to preserve the branches for use in dried floral arrangements. If this were done in the field, the salal product would not only receive a higher price, but the normal loss during transport (generally 25% is lost before reaching the processing plant) would be greatly diminished. “In other words, 40% less volume from the forest, if preserved, would yield the same net profit the fresh product had” (Mater, 1997, p. 22). According to the National Aboriginal Forestry Association (1998), using the value-added concept is particularly important for the First Nations communities, as “value-added businesses make better use of the forest resources and could be adapted to the Aboriginal

25 BCICS Occasional Papers 2 philosophy and culture” (p. 2). Although this is probably more applicable to other NTFPs, such as crafts or medicinals, NAFA notes that First Nations communities generally have a stable labour force and skills for value-adding to resources. These assets would avail themselves to the processing of an NTFP such as salal. Certification is another version of adding value to a product. As with value-added processing, there is greater potential for higher returns on the final product. Further, certifying bodies such as the Forest Stewardship Council (discussed below) and the International Co-operative Alliance hold many of the same values and principles, including those of voluntary membership, economic participation and development, education and training, and concern for community involvement. Certification could be considered an extension of the co-operative functions. v) Certification Although certification is discussed here only as a marketing tool, its role in providing education, incentive, and monitoring should not be undervalued. Certification is a voluntary, market-based tool that a company or organisation can use to assure the purchaser, through the use of an independent third party, that the products were produced in a socially and ecologically sustainable manner. There has been an increasing demand for certification of NTFPs over the last decade, though no existing program adequately covers their certification (Freed, 1996; FSC, 1999; SmartWood, 1999). Official, internationally recognised certification is difficult to obtain for NTFPs due to the unregulated nature of the industry, as discussed below. Currently, there are three possible options for certification in Canada: the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Canada’s national standard-setting body; the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 14000 series, an international standard-setting body; and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international organisation dealing specifically with forestry and having representation from environmental, social, and industry interests. The ISO 14001 certification is a generic certification that is applied

26 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

to organisations in any field. It is system-based, requiring the existence of environmental management standards within the industry, but it does not provide any criteria for performance or effectiveness of these standards. The CSA certification is also systems-based, but it has a performance component. The FSC is entirely performance-based, and has specific regional standards. The first two organisations can provide a label of certification on the co- operative, but only the FSC can potentially label the product itself (Takahashi, Vertinsky, Williamson, & Wilson, 1999). As a marketing tool, having the product ecolabeled is strength in accessing a greater number of markets. In 1998, the FSC approved usage of the FSC label on NTFPs from certified forests on a case-by-case basis, and is still in the process of developing criteria for NTFP certification. As an international, autonomous organisation, the FSC is generally recognised as a valid third-party auditing body. The FSC accredits other organisations, such as SmartWood, to provide certification when requested by land- owners or managers. As a management tool, the FSC works on a system of 10 principles, which are further defined by criteria. Performance is assessed with set indicators and verifiers. Briefly, the 10 principles developed by the FSC (1999) include the following topics: 1. Compliance with laws and FSC principles; 2. Tenure and use rights and responsibilities; 3. Indigenous peoples’ rights; 4. Community relations and worker’s rights; 5. Benefits from the forest; 6. Environmental impacts; 7. Management plan; 8. Monitoring and assessment; 9. Maintenance of high conservation value forests; 10. Plantations. The NTFP principle, when completed, will be number 11 Certification is a step in ensuring recognition of community rights, particularly First Nations’ traditional rights. Although Principle 3 deals with this directly,

27 BCICS Occasional Papers 2 there is also provision for First Nations’ rights in many of the other principles, such as tenure (Principle 2) and community relations (Principle 4). Principle 1, compliance with laws, requires recognition of not only country laws but also international treaties to which the country is a signatory, such as the Convention on Biodiversity. The largest hurdle for NTFP certification is that the products must be harvested from certified forests. Harvesters and buyers rarely have access to private land; most harvesting is done from the provincial forests where the leasing or tenured timber company may or may not be interested in certifying the forest. Currently, no NTFP product carries the FSC certification. This may change with the Community Forest Tenure grants, which provide a community with the required clear title and controlled access to the land. The Harrop-Procter Community Co-operative Association is currently seeking FSC certification. Timber companies are also beginning to consider certification, including forest certification through FSC, as large businesses, such as Home Depot, Seven Islands Land Company, and Assi Doman are moving almost entirely to products from certified forests (HPCCA, 1999; Tedder et al., 2000). Co-operatives can also play a role in this shift, as they have a stronger voice than individuals in lobbying for certified forests in their communities. Another issue with the official certification organisations is that there is some question as to the validity and effectiveness of the process. According to Christopher Genovali, of the Raincoast Conservation Society, the CSA and ISO certifications are more geared toward industry than the environment (Genovali, 2000). The ISO, in particular, only requires the proper system to be in place, but does not monitor its actual effectiveness. There is also some question about the FSC certification, particularly with the draft BC regional standards. Dr. Brian Horejsi, a wildlife scientist on the BCFSC Standards Board, recently resigned, stating there was a lack of democratic process and undue government influence (Genovali, 2000). Although committed organisations could continue to use the certifying bodies as a means of ensuring their own sustainable practices, the effectiveness of labelling as a marketing tool may decrease if the public loses trust in the validity of the labels.

28 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

Potential exists for other forms of certification. Informal certification, such as by the NNRG as mentioned above, provides a set of criteria and third party auditing which grants credibility to a co-operative’s claims. Although the Forest Stewardship Council does not officially sanction this certification, 'A co-operative, or better yet, an it is aware of the program and supports the initiative as a step toward sustainable association of stewardship (L. Nusbaum, Program Director, NNRG, personal co-operatives selling similar communication, 2000). NNRG’s training and certification project addresses products, could develop and register a trademark which “ecological, social, economic, and ‘chain of product distribution’ issues indicates to the purchaser the associated with certification and will examine ways in which SFP [Special sustainable nature of the product.' Forest Product, or NTFP] certification can contribute to sustainable forest management.” (NNRG, Internet) The harvester is certified rather than the product, though the claim of “picked by a certified sustainable harvester” could still be used as a marketing device. This certification may also enable access for harvesters to privately owned or leased land. Some landowners have indicated that with an assurance of proper stewardship, they would allow harvesting on their land (Brigham, 1998; Freed, 1996; NNRG, 1998). Most importantly, informal certification ensures sustainable resource harvesting techniques. Another informal type of certification is the use of a trademark. A co- operative, or better yet, an association of co-operatives selling similar products, could develop and register a trademark which indicates to the purchaser the sustainable nature of the product. Posey and Dutfield (1996) note, however, that there should be caution used here as attaching trademarks to words or terms which promote sales of ethical products could prohibit other co- operatives or organisations from promoting their own ethical products. Informal certification is not always successful, as consumers often do not understand the label or are unsure of its authenticity (Posey & Dutfield, 1996). It, therefore, might be preferable to obtain a more widely recognised certification when possible.

8. Potential difficulties of NTFP Co-operatives A co-operative is based on the values of “self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity” (ICA, 1996, p. 1). While some

29 BCICS Occasional Papers 2 communities are wary of government intervention, others rely heavily on government support mechanisms rather than initiating their own solutions (Tedder et al, 2000). This way of thinking would have to be overcome within the community. 'Once established, [NTFP] If a co-operative is to establish itself in the industry, it must be able to co-operatives have the provide a secured, large volume of product to its purchasers, and therefore potential to increase the voice requires a secured, large number of harvesters. For the inexperienced picker, of forest-based communities, allowing for greater control salal harvesting can be extremely difficult work for very little pay. The number over both resource stewardship of willing harvesters may depend on factors such as other employment and their own economic opportunities and resource access. According to John Kopetzky of the development.' Washington Evergreen Co-operative, people who have not previously harvested salal greens may not work as successful co-op members. Experienced harvesters are widely recognised as being somewhat secretive and individual; “many of these people have tried to avoid society for years” (Freed & Davis, 1997, p. 54). Self-regulation through co-operatives may provide an acceptable alternative to government legislation for these harvesters, but it may be necessary to actively promote the benefits of the co- operative. Washington Evergreens Co-operative has had some difficulty maintaining member harvesters, and in order to ensure volume, was required to open buying up to non-member pickers (J. Kopetzky, personal communication, 2000). According to Rick Ross, of Western Evergreen (personal communication, 2000), a manager with good people skills who could convince the harvesters of the economic and ecological potential of the co-op would probably be able to successfully attract and maintain harvesters.

9. Future potential As the NTFP industry is still relatively young, the volume of information and contacts is small. It will be very important to ensure that communities receive the information and assistance they require in order to initiate successful NTFP co-operatives. Once established, these co-operatives have the potential to increase the voice of forest-based communities, allowing for greater control over both resource stewardship and their own economic development. This ability of co-operatives to combine and address some of the economic,

30 BCICS Occasional Papers 2

ecological and social requirements of communities is important, especially in the forest industry where conflict between users has been the norm. Ronald Ray (1998) articulates this concept well: Sustainable is an inclusive concept. It includes a balance of social, environmental and economic development. If it becomes exclusive of the balance of any of these three, even in fairly small proportions, we reap the consequences. Some of these consequences are immediate, such as in fiscal losses. Some are long-term losses through social strife. And some are longer term losses through environmental degradation. They all affect each other and are linked together.

Here today we have an opportunity, in a small way, to send a message to the future. We have an opportunity to act in one area, managing our forests so that they are sustainable. If we can do this, people in the future will look back on our success, and not wonder why we failed them. For if we fail them, we will also have failed ourselves, by not providing a bridge to the future. (p. 1) Both the NTFP industry and co-operatives are perhaps bricks in this “bridge to the future.” The combination of the two could be a powerful tool for both present and future forest users.

31 Notes

1 ‘Tradition’ is defined by Fikret Berkes (1999) as “cultural continuity transmitted in the form of social attitudes, beliefs, principles and conventions of behaviour and practice derived from historical experience” (p. 19). The use of the word ‘traditional’ throughout this paper is referring to those cultures, practices, and beliefs held by the First Nations peoples prior to European contact. However, it is important to recognise that traditions are not static or absolute, and thus they continue to exist and evolve among Indigenous peoples. Traditions, although arising from the past, reamin an important and relevant part of Indigenous peoples’ present. 2 Names have been changed to protect anonymity. 3 Sustainable harvesting is the practice of harvesting in such a manner that the plant is able to continue to survive, thrive, and regenerate successfully. Sustainable harvesting involves consideration and knowledge of issues such as the plant’s capacity and time to regenerate, its reproductive capacity, the abundance of local populations, the effects of methods of harvest, and cumulative effects such as season and repetitive harvest. 4 Sustainable development, as used here, is adequately defined by the Bruntland Report (1987) as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 8). I assume a general approach which encompasses the needs of ecological, economic, and social systems] of both the community and the resources.

32 Appendix 1

Contacts for assistance in NTFP co-operative development

This list is very limited but is provided as an initial starting point of establishing information and contacts for those wishing to explore options in NTFP co-operatives.

Financial and educational support

British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies University of Victoria University House 2 - Rm. 109. PO Box 3060 STN CSC Victoria BC. V8W 3R4 Canada Tel: (250) 472-4539 Fax: (250) 472-4541 Email: [email protected] Website: http://web.uvic.ca/bcics

Ministry of Community Development, Co-operatives and Volunteers 221 Market Square, 560 Johnson Street PO Box 9915 Victoria, BC. Canada Tel: (250) 387-2191 Fax: (250) 387-2498

Aboriginal Business Canada 2000-300 W Georgia St Vancouver, BC. Canada Tel: (604) 666-3871

Ecotrust Canada Suite 202 1226 Hamilton Street Vancouver, BC Canada, V6B 2S8 Tel: (604) 682-4141, Fax: (604) 682-1944 email: [email protected] Web site: http://www.ecotrustcan.org Ecotrust Canada promotes the concept of conservation-based development in coastal communities of British

33 Columbia. This non-profit, charity organisation supports local entrepreneurs, community organisations and First Nations. Types of support include providing technological, financial, managerial, marketing and networking assistance through a web of affiliated organisations throughout the bioregion.

Northwest Natural Resource Group Contact: Larry Nussbaum, Program Director P.O. Box 1067 Port Townsend, WA USA, 98368 Tel: (360) 379-9421, Fax: (360) 385-7455 email: [email protected] Website: http://www.nnrg.org NNRG is a non-profit conservation organisation supporting community development options using sustainable natural resource management. As part of an alliance of organisations, including Ecotrust Canada, Shorebank Enterprises and SmartWood, NNRG provides the information and training for the ecological aspect of a NTFP business. Their project, The Non-Timber Forest Products Harvester Training and Certification Project, is “aimed at improving harvesting practices of NTFPs, while simultaneously developing economic opportunities for the harvester workforce and small NTFP businesses. The program provides assessment and training services to harvesters based on species specific Best Management Practices and a set of competency skills to ensure land stewardship. NNRG is also setting up a framework for product certification under the auspices of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Products deriving from these socially and environmentally sound sources will be channelled through NTFP businesses interested in capturing the market share for sustainably harvested, value- added non-timber Specialty Forest Products.”

KWC Training Contact: Tim Brigham 743 21st Street, New Westminster, BC Canada, V3M 4X8 tel/fax: (604) 526-2600 or (60) 526-3454 Provides a course and/or handbook on developing or expanding a NTFP business. The curriculum was developed as a Forest Renewal BC project, Course Development on Non-Timber Forest Products, PA97423-ORE. The focus of the training is on marketing, and provides contacts in industry, government, and botanical societies.

NTFP Co-operatives These co-operatives have expressed their willingness to help others initiate, though by no means are the only ones.

Washington Evergreen Co-op Contact: John Kopetzky Washington, USA Tel: (360) 754-4519

34 Harrop-Procter Community Co-operative Association P.O. Box 5, Procter, B.C. Canada, V0G 1V0 Tel: (250) 229-2221 fax: (250) 229-2332 email: [email protected]

Wilp Sa Maa’y Harvesting Co-operative Contact: Carla Burton Box 3398, Smithers, BC Canada, V0J 1Y0 Tel: 250-847-0278 email: [email protected]

35 References

Berkes, F. (1994) . Co-management: Bridging the two solitudes. Northern Perspectives, 22, 18-20.

Berkes, F., Kislaloglu, M., Folke, C., & Gadgil, M. (1998) . Exploring the basic ecological unit: Ecosystem-like concepts in traditional societies. Ecosystems, 1, 409-415.

Brigham, T. (1998) . Training for NTFP business development. In, Non-Timber Forest Products. Workshop Proceedings (pp. 34-35) . April 3-5, 1998. Alert Bay, BC: Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre, University of Victoria.

Burton, C. (1999) . Starting a non-timber forest products enterprise: the Wilp Sa Maa’y harvesting co- operative. Ecoforestry, 14 (4), 20-23.

Carpenter, J. and Turner, N. J. 1999. Collaborative research between communities and universities: A case study between the Heiltsuk and the University of Victoria School of Environmental Studies’ “Looking afterthe salmon project” with James T. Jones. Final Report to Forest Renewal BC. (Grant #PA97597-4RE). Victoria, BC: FRBC.

Chamberlain, J., Bush, R., & Hammett, A. L. (1998) . Non-timber forest products; the other forest products. Forest Products Journal, 48, 9-19.

Chapeski, A. (1999, March) . Landscape and livelihood: Non-timber forest products in contemporary first nations economies. Paper presented to Nuu-Chah-Nulth Value-Added Workshop. Port Alberni, BC.

Chilliwack Forest District. (1998, September) . Botanical forest products bulletin. Chilliwack, BC: Ministry of Forests. Available Internet: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/vancouvr/district/chilliwa/opplaning/ bfpbulletin%5F1.html

Craig, J. (1998) . “Nature was the provider”: Traditional ecological knowledge and inventory of culturally significant plants and habitats in the Atleo River Watershed, Ahousaht Territory, Clayoquot Sound. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.

De Geus, P. M. J. (1995) . Botanical forest products in British Columbia: An overview. Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Forests. Integrated Resources Policy Branch.

Draeseke, R. (1998) . Overview of existing economic information regarding non-timber forest products in British Columbia. Victoria, BC: Economics and Trade Branch, BC Ministry of Forests.

36 Environmental Law Centre. (2000) . Organising Forestry Cooperatives in British Columbia. Victoria, BC: BC Institute for Co-operative Studies.

Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J. M. (1990) . The tragedy of the commons: Twenty- two years later. Human Ecology, 18, 1-19.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (1995) . Non-wood forest products for rural income and sustainable forestry: Non-wood forest products 7 (M-30 ISBN 92-5-103765-5) . Available Internet: http// :www.fao.org/docrep/v9480e/v9480e00.htm

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) . (1999) . Principles and criteria for forest stewardship (Document 1.2) . Oaxaca, Mexico. Available Internet: http://www.fscoax.org/html/available_documents.html#1-2

Freed, J. R. (1996) . Certification of wildcrafters in the Pacific Northwest. International Journal of Ecoforestry, 12, 153-155.

Freed, J. R., Davis, J. R. (1997) . Management opportunities and constraints: State and federal land management perspectives. In N. Vance & J. Thomas (Eds.) , Special forest products: biodiversity meets the marketplace (GTR-WO-63) (pp. 54-59) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Friesen, T. (1999) . Eking out a middle ground. Harrop-Procter Watershed Protection Society, 8 (1).

Genovali, C. (2000, March 14) . Forest certification is at crossroads. Times Colonist, p. A15.

Gunther, E. (1973) . Ethnobotany of Western Washington (Rev. ed.) . Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Haley, D. (1997, January). Community forests: From dream to reality. Prepared for the Community Forest Conference. January 29-31, 1997. Rossland, BC: Union of BC Municipalities, Ministry of Agriculture, UBC Department of Forest Resources Management, & the City of Rossland.

Hammett, A. L., & Chamberlain, J. L. (1998) . Sustainable use of non-traditional forest products: Alternative forest-based income opportunities. In Natural Resources Income Opportunities on Private Lands, Conference Proceedings and Invited Papers (pp. 141-147) . April 5 - 7, 1998. Hagerstown, MD. University of Maryland, Cooperative Extension Service..

Harrop-Procter Community Co-operative Association (HPCCA). (1999, December) . Harrop-Procter

37 Watershed News.

International Co-operative Alliance (ICA). (1996) . Co-operative principles for the 21st century. Geneva: Author.

International Model Forest Network. Website. Available Internet (Accessed July, 2000): http:// www.idrc.ca/imfn/

Johnson, M., & Ruttan, R. A. (1993) . Traditional Dene environmental knowledge, a pilot project conducted in Fort Good Hope and Colville Lake N.W.T. 1989 - 1993. Hay River, Northwest Territories: Dene Cultural Institute.

Joseph, C. (1998) . Kwakwaka’wakw medicinal plants expert, presentation (no title). In, Non-Timber Forest Products. Workshop Proceedings (p. 19) . April 3-5, 1998. Alert Bay, BC: Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre, University of Victoria.

Jungwirth, L., & Brown, B. A. (1997) . Strategy and co-management schemes addressing multicultural conflicts. In N. Vance & J. Thomas (Eds.) , Special forest products: biodiversity meets the marketplace (GTR-WO-63) (pp. 88-107) . Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Mater, C. M. (1997) . Consumer trends, market opportunities, and new approaches to sustainable development of special forest products. In N. Vance & J. Thomas (Eds.) , Special forest products: biodiversity meets the marketplace (GTR-WO-63) (pp. 8-25) . Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

McLain, R. J., & Jones, E. T. (1999) . Expanding NTFP harvester/buyer participation in the Pacific Northwest business policy. Unpublished manuscript. Available: The Institute for Culture and Ecology, 7377 20th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98115.

Ministry of Forests. (1999, July 16) . Harrop-Procter society gets community forest. News Release 1999 (file #081) . Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Forests.

Nabhan, G. P. (Ed.) . (1998) . Passing on a sense of place and traditional ecological knowledge between generations: A primer for Native American museum educators and community-based cultural education projects. In Martin, G. J., Hoare, A. L., & Agama, A. L. (Eds.) . People and Plants Handbook Issue 4 - Measuring diversity: methods of assessing biological resources and local knowledge (p. 30-33) . Available Internet: http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/peopleplants/handbook/

National Aboriginal Forestry Association (NAFA) . (1999) . Non-timber forest products: Exploring

38 opportunities for Aboriginal communities. Ottawa, ON: Doug Brubacker & Associates.

National Aboriginal Forestry Association (NAFA). (1998) . Value-added forestry and Aboriginal communities: The perfect fit. NAFA Newsletter, Spring, 1-3.

(NAFA). (1995, December) . Aboriginal participation in forest management: Not just another stakeholder. NAFA position paper. Ottawa, ON: National Aboriginal Forestry Association.

Northwest Natural Resource Group. Website. Available Internet (Accessed July, 2000) : http:// www.nnrg.org

Pojar, J., & MacKinnon, A. (Eds.) . (1994) . Plants of Coastal British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: BC Ministry of Forests, & Lone Pine Publishing.

Posey, D. A., & Dutfield, G. (1996) . Beyond intellectual property: Toward traditional resource rights for indigenous peoples and local communities. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre.

Ray, R. (1998, Spring) . Aboriginal issues in sustainable forest management: A presentation by Ronald Ray to the National Forest Congress (April 30, 1998). NAFA Newsletter, Special Insert, 1-4.

Richards, R. T. (1998) . Community development and wild huckleberry harvesting. In Non-Timber Forest Products. Workshop Proceedings (pp 26-28) . April 3-5, 1998. Alert Bay, BC: Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre, University of Victoria.

Ross, Richard. 1998. The changing future of NTFPs. In Non-Timber Forest Products. Workshop Proceedings (pp 15-16) . April 3-5, 1998. Alert Bay, BC: Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre, University of Victoria.

Schnepf, C. (Ed.) . (1994) . Dancing with an elephant. Proceedings of the business and science of special forest products, a conference and exposition (pp. 117-128) . January 26-27. Hillsboro, OR: University of Idaho Extension Service: 117-128. Sponsored by: Northwest Forest Products Association; Western Forestry and Conservation Association.

SmartWood. (1999, March) . Generic guidelines for assessing the management of NTFPs in natural forests. (Unpublished paper - Draft #3) .

Staudinger, L. (1998) . Non-timber forest products. NAFA Newsletter, Spring, 4.

39 Takahashi, T., Vertinsky, H., Williamson, T., & Wilson, B. (1999) . Summary report: survey of the Canadian commercial forestry perspective on certification. (Work. Pap. 99.05.) Victoria, BC: NRCan, CFS, Pacific Forestry Centre. Available Internet: http://www.pfc.forestry.ca

Tedder, S., Mitchell, D., & Farran, R. (2000) . Seeing the forest beneath the trees: The social and economic potential of non-timber forest products and services in the Queen Charlotte Islands/Haida Gwaii. Queen Charlotte City, BC: South Moresby Forest Replacement Account.

Thiessen, S. (1998) . Non timber forest products in British Columbia; An industry analysis and feasibility study. Victoria, BC: The Science Council of BC.

Thomas, M. G., & Schumann, D. R. (1993) . Income opportunities in special forest products: Self- help suggestions for rural entreprenuers. Agriculture Information Bulletin 666. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.

Turner, N. J. (1995) . Food plants of Coastal First Peoples. Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Turner, N., & Cocksedge, W. (in press) . Aboriginal Use of Non-Timber Forest Products in Northwestern North America: Applications and Issues. In Emery, M. R. (Ed.) . Non-timber forest products in the United States: An overview of research and policy issues. Journal of Sustainable Forestry.

Turner, N. J., & Efrat, B. S. (1982) . Ethnobotany of the Hesquiat Indians of Vancouver Island. Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook. UBC Press. Vancouver, BC.

Turner, N. J., Thomas, J., Carlson, B. F., & Oglivie, R. T. (1983) . Ethnobotany of the Nitinaht Indians of Vancouver Island. Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

von Hagen, B., & Fight, R. D. (1999) . Opportunities for conservation-based development of nontimber forest products in the Pacific Northwest (PNW-GTR-473) . Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Wills, R. M., & Lipsey, R. G. (1999) . An Economic Strategy to Develop Non-Timber Forest Products and Services in British Columbia. Final Report to Forest Renewal BC. (Grant # PA97538-ORE). Victoria, BC: FRBC.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987) . Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

40 About the Author

Wendy Cocksedge originates from the edges of the Mission Community Forest, in British Columbia. She is currently an MSc candidate (Biology/ Environmental Studies) at the University of Victoria. Within the study of Ethnobotany, Wendy is focusing on the sustainable harvesting potential of salal (Gaultheria shallon). Due to her field of study, Wendy has had the opportunity of being involved with some projects which have worked with forest based communities in BC, finding economic and ecological alternatives to the traditional timber industry. Wendy has presented some of her findings to various groups within Victoria, as well as at several conferences and workshops, and has co-published a forthcoming article with Nancy Turner, “Aboriginal Use of Non-Timber Forest Products in Northwestern North America: Applications and Issues.” In Emery, M.r. (Ed.) . Non-timber forest products in the United States: An overview of research and policy issues. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. (in press)