In the studies presented in Chapters 3 to 7, I examined different aspects of the use and occupation of forestlands by the forest industry and the Atikamekw. Within each chapter, I identified a number of characteristics of the forestry paradigms of each party; characteristics that showed the values and beliefs associated with forestlands as well as the techniques and systems used there. At the end of each chapter, Charts 3 to 7 summarize and compare the principal contributions of the chapter to determining the characteristics of each paradigm.

Through these studies, a series of nine key concepts emerged that link various characteristics within a paradigm. These concepts differentiate the two paradigms, but also provide opportunities for imagining ways of bridging the gap between the paradigms. Using these concepts, I propose a framework for analysing different forestry paradigms (Table 13) and two brief descriptions of the forestry paradigms of the industry and the Atikamekw (Chart 8 and Chart 9). Each concept is considered in greater detail in section 8.3, illustrating differences and similarities between the paradigms and exploring theoretical implications in relation to other research.

The analytical framework in Table 13 is intended as an aide both for understanding forestry paradigms and for developing processes that can promote coexistence of paradigms. Clarifying the various concepts underlying paradigms can guide investigation of the characteristics of another paradigm, and promote reflection about one’s own paradigm. The framework applies equally to Atikamekw and forest industry paradigms, and so facilitates the task of understanding how a single situation is interpreted within different paradigms. The framework also promotes development of processes for coexistence by highlighting the key concepts that need to be addressed. The range of possibilities covered by these concepts means that it is highly unlikely that any single process, action or model could respond adequately to all aspects of both paradigms. Instead a variety of complementary processes will almost certainly be needed for coexistence.

This analytical framework is based on my examination of the Atikamekw and the forest industry. It is unlikely that the Cree of northern Québec share exactly the same paradigm as the Atikamekw, or that the forest industry in Maine USA shares that of the industry in the Haute Mauricie. However, the concepts presented in the framework are more general, and reflect other experiences and situations, as described in section 8.3. More precisely, a series of similar concepts were also presented in a framework by Hill, Baird et al. (1999) comparing the traditional fire management practices of the Kuku-Yalanji people in northern Australia to those used by the government agency now responsible for managing their lands. Dimensions identified by Hill, Baird et al. (1999) include: desired outcomes, political and legal controls, economic base, technology of management, social aspects, ethical and spiritual basis, and knowledge base. The emphasise of both frameworks on understanding traditional mechanisms of land management supports other literature calling for increasing recognition of the role of communities in forest management around the world (Bruce 1999; Ostrom 1999). The similarities of these frameworks, in different cultures and geographic situations, suggest that this approach to analysis may be appropriate for examining cross-cultural paradigms relating to land and resource management in other situations.

Chart 8 and Chart 9 present very simplified views of forestland paradigms currently held by the forest industry and the Atikamekw. These charts should be read in conjunction with the more detailed description and analysis in section 8.3, which also addresses theoretical interpretations. However, the success of relationships between the Atikamekw and the forest industry requires that each party understands the other. Accordingly, these two charts provide a brief description of the key elements of each paradigm.

The forest industry paradigm in Chart 8 is presented before that of the Atikamekw in Chart 9. This is in recognition of the fact that the industry paradigm is currently dominant in the Haute-Mauricie. It also serves as a reminder to both the industry and the Atikamekw that coexistence processes need to be developed if the Atikamekw paradigm is not to remain permanently in second place, or to become irrelevant.

Chart 8 The industrial paradigm for forestlands in the Haute-Mauricie

Chart 9 The Atikamekw paradigm for forestlands on Nitaskinan

As stated in Chapter 2, this research is an exploratory case study, providing a detailed examination of a specific situation. The study aims at depth rather than breadth, and I have not attempted to correlate the Atikamekw paradigm with that of other First Nations. In fact, the Atikamekw paradigm presented here is based principally on work with only one community, while the industry paradigm represents the views of only a small part of Québec’s forest industry. Nevertheless, these findings are consistent with research concerning other First Nations, forestry in Québec, and the involvement of indigenous peoples in forestland management (as identified through references in this and other chapters). This exploratory approach has enabled me to investigate relations between the Atikamekw and the industry, being open to the information and perceptions that they considered important. This would not have been possible within the constraints of a study based on verification of a hypothesis deduced from existing theory.

The Grounded Theory approach that I have used does not aim at “proving” an explanation. Instead, the final point of the study is the proposition of an explanation that is grounded in the data (Strauss and Corbin 1990). The paradigm descriptions and the analytical framework presented in this chapter represent theoretical explanations of the occupation and use of forestlands by the Atikamekw and the forest industry. These explanations have been developed rigorously from the information collected through this research, and have been verified internally, but have not been otherwise confirmed for either Atikamekw involvement in forestry or for other situations. Further research, using a hypothetico-deductive approach and quantitative techniques, would be useful to examine the extent to which these paradigms accurately reflect Atikamekw and industry practices on forestlands. Similar techniques could also be used to verify the analytical framework in other situations. Alternatively, action-research could use these paradigms and the analytical framework to develop and evaluate new processes for coexistence between First Nations and the forest industry. Such an approach would also be able to monitor the changes in both paradigms that will almost certainly follow from coexistence.

For the Atikamekw, Nitaskinan is a place that is integral to their culture, to their way of living. They are “engaged” with Nitaskinan , it is not simply a place where they undertake various activities (Poirier 2001). This is consistent with other research among the Cree examining the relationship between people and animals and the territory (Feit 2000; Scott and Webber 2001). For the Atikamekw, as for the Cree, forestlands are occupied by both humans and by other “beings”, which are equally deserving of respect. For some Atikamekw informants in this research, Nitaskinan represents their history and their heritage. Placenames commonly record Atikamekw history or describe the characteristics of the place, or of events that occurred there^[166]. History, language, relationships and values are all elements of the Atikamekw engagement with Nitaskinan .

This engagement is clearly a different understanding from that of the forest industry, for whom the Haute-Mauricie forests are resources to be managed. Timber resources are of highest priority for the industry, but other resources such as water, fauna, and recreation are also recognised. These are “resources” in the sense that they are used to produce benefits for society, and each supports an economically important industry. Principles of multiple-use, sustained yield and timber production are well established in forestry, guiding the management of forestlands to provide optimum and sustainable quantities of various products (Bouthillier 2001; Duerr et al. 1982). Within this view, forestlands are a place to be used, to be managed or to be visited; they are not a place to live.

Nitaskinan remains a place for the Atikamekw to live, as demonstrated by the sub-study in Chapter 5. Clearly, the extent and practices of occupation have altered since Kawapisit first arrived in the Haute-Mauricie (Clermont 1977; Dandenault 1983). However, it is incorrect to assume that the Atikamekw live solely in the village of Wemotaci, and that their utilisation of forestlands resembles that of the Euro-Canadians living in La Tuque. The Atikamekw have integrated new developments and opportunities into their culture, while maintaining their occupation of Nitaskinan (Gélinas 2000; Poirier 2001).

This difference between Atikamekw and industry ways of defining and describing forestlands supports the analysis of Ingold (1996) concerning the distinction between “nature” and “culture”. Western thought has long assumed a basic separation between nature and culture, between the external environment and human institutions, knowledge, and actions. The forest industry represents a human culture that is capable of efficiently managing and using the natural resources of forestlands; going to the forest, taking what is needed, carrying out management activities, and then returning home. However, reviewing research on various hunter-gather peoples, including the Cree, Ingold concluded that the traditional western dichotomy does not apply. Instead, the Atikamekw, like other hunter-gatherers, see themselves as engaged with Nitaskinan ; forestlands are understood as an environment for (and including) humans, rather than as “nature” separated from human “culture”.

While these two perceptions of the environment, and of humans’ place in it, are fundamentally different, there are links between them. The Atikamekw term “ aski” may be loosely translated as “Mother Earth”. It encompasses all that is present in the world, or in Nitaskinan , including animals, water, trees, rocks and soil, birds and, of course, human beings. Aski is analogous to concepts of “ecosystem” or “biodiversity” in contemporary forestry, in which humans are included as integral parts of the environment. Increasing interest in ecosystem management and recognition that humans have a place in forest landscapes (Bengston 1994; Kimmins 2002) suggests forestry principles that resemble those of the Atikamekw. Although professional foresters may continue to view forestlands as resources, these principles could lead to management that respects the Atikamekw understanding of Nitaskinan .

A second critical element in the Atikamekw understanding of Nitaskinan is the perception of the territory through routes and itineraries, rather than as a series of distinct geographical areas (Poirier 2001). While the Atikamekw recognise family territories, natoho aski , they also describe their occupation and use through circuits, natoho meskano , itineraries that relate a series of places, experiences and knowledge. In contrast, the forest industry prepares detailed maps showing species and age of trees in the forest, and dividing the Haute-Mauricie into forest management units. The Atikamekw perception appears as a voyage through named geographical space and through time, while forest maps appear as a division solely of geographical space. Nevertheless, forest planning is inherently a question of both space and time; trees planted now will require decades before they are commercially valuable to the industry. This suggests that it may be possible to undertake forestry planning in ways that resemble an Atikamekw itinerary through forestlands.

Finally, Atikamekw involvement in forestry presents a risk for their understanding of forestlands, for their engagement with Nitaskinan . The relationship of Atikamekw with Nitaskinan and with notcimik may change, as they become loggers and managers of forestlands, accepting the practices and institutions of the industry. The maintenance of their way of describing forestlands, as presented here, depends on their being able to adopt forestry into their way of life, while simultaneously integrating Atikamekw understanding into contemporary forestry.

For the Atikamekw, forestlands are a factor in their personal and communal identity. “ Notcimik ” signifies “the place that I come from”, as well as meaning the place where a person can find what they need to live (Poirier 2001). It is places to which they return to refresh or to regather strength, or to reinforce their engagement with aski . This indicates that, for many Atikamekw, life in the village may be considered as abnormal, even if they spend more time there than on notcimik . Furthermore, the process of becoming nehirowsiw, an autonomous individual, requires the knowledge and aptitudes to live on notcimik . Without access to notcimik, an Atikamekw is not able to be autonomous or to reassert his identity. Contemporary forest management that affects access to notcimik also affects Atikamekw identity.

The importance of notcimik for the Atikamekw may be related to the concept of “sense of place” that is identified by some researchers in the social aspects of forestry. “Place” depends on the social and cultural meanings that people give to a particular setting, and on the nature or “spirit” of the place, which may not be readily recognizable (Brandenberg and Carroll 1995). Sense of place does not appear to be recognised in forestry management of the Haute-Mauricie, and does not yet have a place in the forest industry paradigm. This corresponds with the comments of Beckley (2003) who believes that the importance of “place” is currently understated, and that it depends on both sociocultural and ecological factors. Speaking of hunters, he says «They develop a relation with a land base or a landscape, and through knowing it, they become attached to it» (Beckley 2003, p 121). This corresponds to the Atikamekw engagement with Nitaskinan , although the depth of the relationship may be very different. The interviews in Chapter 7 included the comments of two foresters describing their personal feelings about forestlands, indicating that these lands were not just forests of wood but were places with importance to them. Further recognition of “sense of place” as a concept in forest management may assist the forest industry to recognize the importance of notcimik in Atikamekw identity.

Both the forest industry and the Atikamekw have extensive bodies of knowledge concerning forestlands. Contemporary forest management obliges the industry and the government in the Haute-Mauricie to collect large amounts of data describing forests. This information is used in sophisticated computer models to determine timber that will be available for harvest and to prepare operational and strategic plans to guide forestry operations in the current year, and for the next twenty-five years. Foresters seek objective, standardized information that can be used to compare various areas without being subject to different interpretations. Much information is highly technical, is stored on computerized information systems, and can only be understood by specialists. This flow of information represents the rational scientific basis of forestry and the principles of good forest management (Duerr et al. 1982; Higman et al. 1999). New approaches to forestry, such as ecosystem management (Kennedy et al. 2001), will probably contribute to even greater information needs concerning the Haute-Mauricie forests.

The existence of these two types of knowledge has been recognised through research into traditional ecological knowledge (TEK, Chapter 1). Various researchers have established lists of different characteristics of “western scientific knowledge” and TEK, including many of the elements identified above. Particularly important is the reliance of western science on being rational (as opposed to inductive), on reducing problems to sub-questions (rather than taking a holistic view) and on rejecting spiritual explanations (Berkes 1993; Johnson 1992). These characteristics have long lead professional scientists and foresters to reject TEK. Nevertheless, traditional knowledge is being increasingly accepted as an essential component of contemporary natural resource management (MacKinnon et al. 2001).

Atikamekw and industry information reflects their different interests in forestlands. Atikamekw knowledge concerns life on Nitaskinan , whereas industry knowledge is focused on timber production. Atikamekw knowledge concerning canoe portages, moose hunting practices or the meanings of place names brings little direct benefit to industry management of forests. Although the industry may accept traditional knowledge as a part of contemporary forest management, this is a response to the obligation to recognize the Atikamekw presence on forestlands. Atikamekw information provides a way of modifying forestry operations in response to this presence; it rarely provides positive benefits to the industry in improving timber production. Nevertheless, contemporary management of forestlands is increasingly taking account of other users and other forest resources, adopting new approaches such as ecosystem management. In this context, Atikamekw knowledge of Nitaskinan , and especially of fauna habitats and habits, should be essential for future management of forestlands, even if is currently accorded little importance.

Forestland management based on both industry and Atikamekw knowledge requires an appreciation of different ways for transmitting or passing on knowledge. Within the industry, professional foresters pass a four year training program at university to give them basic knowledge and skills. While forestry training does include periods of fieldwork, forestry education is often distinct from practice; forestry students are taught by specialist educators and researchers, and only rarely by those who work in the forest^[167]. Information is collected by specialist technicians, rather than by those who will be using the information to plan or to carry out activities in the forest. This approach is quite different to that of the Atikamekw who emphasise the personal and practical aspects of information; knowledge is passed on from elders to children through story telling and through practices on Nitaskinan (Lavoie 1999). Women have particularly important roles in teaching children about history and about values, through telling stories and through listening to their children’s stories. The transmission of knowledge relies upon social structures and the continuing occupation of Nitaskinan .

The forest industry in the Haute-Mauricie now recognizes the need to collect information about Atikamekw and other uses of the forest, and to include this in forest management planning. Consultation processes aim to identify sites and values that can then be protected through specific measures. In order to facilitate these consultations the Atikamekw have engaged their own forester who can interpret industry plans for them, and explain their interests to company foresters. These consultations are organised around an industry understanding of knowledge, rather than the Atikamekw view. Mapping and documenting are not traditional ways of recording or transferring knowledge, not all information can be marked on maps, and cultural importance of information is often lost if this is reduced to individual sites (Natcher 2001). Atikamekw leaders are reluctant to freely distribute information concerning traditional territories or fauna habitats without knowing who will have access to this information and how it will be used. This contrasts with an industry view that Atikamekw interests cannot be protected if they do not share information. However, for the Atikamekw, sharing of information should recognise their culture and include participation in decision-making.

If forestland management is to respond to Atikamekw interests, and to recognize a wider range of uses and values, a greater role for Atikamekw knowledge will be needed. Closer collaboration between Atikamekw and forest managers (in the industry or elsewhere) could identify Atikamekw information to enhance management, and industry information that could assist Atikamekw occupation. Such collaboration could enable ka nikantic , and other Atikamekw who hold the knowledge, to discuss management with foresters, who also have knowledge about forestlands. This would respect Atikamekw traditions for passing on knowledge, while reducing uncertainty over access and use, and could facilitate Atikamekw participation in decision-making. Both Atikamekw and industry representatives would have to develop the capacity to understand the words and techniques used by the other to pass on information. Such an approach could enable the two types of knowledge to be complementary for forestland management, and contribute to coexistence of the paradigms.

Practices and actions on forestlands may be the most visible manifestation of different paradigms. The industry and the government now generally accept Atikamekw presence on forestlands and their interest in practicing traditional activities. They also accept the need to modify government regulations and industry practices to take account of this. However, it is also important to note that there are different understandings of “traditional activities”. For the government and the industry, the term suggests a relatively restrained group of activities undertaken for subsistence and cultural reasons, with hunting, trapping and fishing being most important. However, the Atikamekw give this a much wider meaning including all Atikamekw activities and identifying the link between activities and knowledge and culture (Poirier 2001).

Atikamekw practices were examined most closely in Chapter 5. This sub-study clearly showed the current extent of Atikamekw practices and their importance for contemporary occupation of Nitaskinan and for Nehirowisi pimatisiwin , the Atikamekw way of life. Atikamekw co-researcher Yvon Chilton and myself identified three main groups of practices: kapeciwin , life on the territory and in camp; atoskewin and natohowin , taking and using resources; and tipahiskan , the Atikamekw approach to managing Nitaskinan . Within these groups are numerous individual practices; those that are well known such as mos atoskaniwon, killing a moose, and those that are less recognised by non-Atikamekw such as acikewin , sharing moose meat with other members of the community. Atikamekw practices are inter-related rather than distinct; each practice contributes to others, to maintaining knowledge and the Atikamekw language and to supporting social structures. Similarly, other research has shown the significance of hunting for the Cree and the importance of traditional practices in maintaining their lifestyle (Feit 2000; Scott 1989). For the Atikamekw, as for the Cree, traditional practices are not just activities that are undertaken in forestlands, they are a part of an engagement with aski , with Nitaskinan and with noctimik (Poirier 2001). If practices are affected by forestry operations on Nitaskinan , then the Atikamekw way of life is also affected.

The forest industry is obliged to manage forests to produce timber, a goal requiring a vast range of practices. Logging, road construction and tree planting may be the most visible, but these are also supported by other tasks such as forest inventories, consultations, and, of course, converting logs into wood products. The industry must comply with forestry regulations, particularly for logging standards (and including certification processes), while operating in a competitive international market for wood products. Consultation processes are now included in industry practices and the industry is aware of public concerns about forest practices. For industry foresters, forest practices need to produce timber in compliance with required standards and economic limitations, while still responding to the interests of the Atikamekw and other users of forestlands. As for the Atikamekw, industry practices represent a complex web of inter-related activities, knowledge and structures.

Over the last five years, forestry companies and the Atikamekw have been co-operating to find ways to harmonize industry and Atikamekw practices, particularly to reduce the impacts of forestry upon the Atikamekw. Initiatives by Association Mamo Atoskewin Atikamekw, Services forestiers Atikamekw Aski , the Scierie Tackipotcikan and the Projet d’harmonisation, together with forestry company partners, have all lead to changes in industry practices. However, it is also important to note the limitations of these efforts. AMAA’s initial approach in proposing new, more restrictive, standards was rejected by the industry, and the information collected in the 1980s is only now being used in forestry planning (Chapter 4). SFAA and the Scierie Tackipotcikan both modified some industry practices, but being part of the forest industry also obliged them to accept many more. The Projet d’harmonisation team is now negotiating modifications on a case-by-case basis, working within the planning and management framework established by the forestry regime. Similar harmonization efforts among the Cree have led to changes, but have not resolved conflicts or led to agreement on the extent of areas that should be excluded from logging (Feit and Beaulieu 2001). These experiences demonstrate that it is very difficult for First Nations to develop new approaches to forestry within the industry management systems (Curran and M'Gonigle 1999; Ross and Smith 2002).

The Atikamekw have a long history of occupation of Nitaskinan . Prior to the arrival of kawapisit, they had developed their own systems for occupying these forestlands (section 8.3.7). Atikamekw history is maintained through placenames on Nitaskinan , and through stories and teaching (Lavoie 1999). Although kawapisit brought many changes to the Haute-Mauricie and altered traditional lifestyles, the Atikamekw have maintained their language and continued to live on Nitaskinan . They have integrated new developments into their way of life, avoiding assimilation into Euro-Canadian society (Gélinas 2000; Poirier 2001). Since the early 1900s, the Atikamekw have had relations with the forestry companies, eventually leading to the Scierie Tackipotcikan partnership. Over the last thirty years, the Atikamekw have increasingly sought to assert their cultural identity and their rights to Nitaskinan (Chapter 3. While the Atikamekw now have responsibility for many social services within the communities, they have not yet succeeded in gaining control of Nitaskinan (in full or in part). Understanding Atikamekw history shows their enduring occupation of Nitaskinan , and their capacity to integrate the Euro-Canadian presence into ways of maintaining this occupation. However, this history also shows kawapisit taking control of the majority of the Haute-Mauricie, and reluctance to recognise Atikamekw rights. For the Atikamekw, participation in forestry represents both a continuation of their previous success in integrating new developments, and an opportunity to exercise some control over forestry on Nitaskinan .

The forest industry history is much shorter, but is nevertheless significant. The forest industry in Québec developed with the goal of producing timber from the province’s seemingly endless forests. Subsequently, increasing timber production led to the need for forest management and the development of the forestry profession. During the last twenty years, the industry has continued to adapt to more government involvement and to increasing public concerns about forests, while continuing to manage forests to produce timber. Most recently, forestry companies are accepting a role for First Nations, and Crete and Smurfit-Stone have worked to promote Atikamekw participation in forest management and timber production. Both these companies have particular histories that may affect their relations with the Atikamekw; Crete is a regional family-owned, and Smurfit-Stone is the inheritor of nearly 100 years of relations with the Atikamekw at Wemotaci and of large private forests in the Haute-Mauricie. The history of the industry, and these companies in particular, shows a long-established role as manager of forests and producer of timber. This role has been generally accepted by Québec society, and is still seen as important for regional economic development. For the industry, forest management provides both timber and economic development, and Atikamekw participation in forestry is a natural way of meeting the needs of both.

Although historical relations have contributed to the development of partnerships between the Atikamekw and the industry, relations between the First Nations and Euro-Canadian society cannot be idealised. Although Atikamekw from Wemotaci frequently visit La Tuque, and the CNA Offices are located in the town, there are few relations between the communities (Nadeau 2002). Dupuis (2001) describes the lack of understanding between Euro-Canadian and First Nations in Québec, and these differences were clearly illustrated through public controversy and conflict over the terms of a general agreement between the Québec government and the Innu nation in 2002 (Chapter 1). Although representatives of the forest industry may not support these views (and many have good relations with Atikamekw leaders), the perceptions held by Québec society of First Nations will affect the ways that the forest management system addresses relations between Atikamekw and the industry.

The industry and the Atikamekw have different histories concerning forestlands. These histories have lead them to develop knowledge, practices and management systems for forestlands. They have also contributed to both good relations and to mistrust. These historical factors affect the decisions that both parties now make concerning their occupation and utilisation of Nitaskinan and the Haute-Mauricie

Within their own paradigms, both the industry and the Atikamekw have numerous goals, objectives and expectations^[168] concerning forestlands. What people want from forestlands is important in determining the decisions that they make regarding the management of forestlands and of human actions on these lands. Table 14 (page 299) provides a summary of various goals, objectives and expectations identified during this research. The priority or importance of these elements differs among informants within each group.

Some expectations appear on both lists, or are very similar and may be considered as harmonious. Among these are the creation of employment and economic development, and increased Atikamekw participation in forestry and the forest industry, leading to a share of economic benefits. These are the advantages of partnerships most often mentioned in the literature (Mayers and Vermeulen 2002; NAFA/IOG 2000). Such shared expectations have been the foundation of existing partnerships in SFAA, the Scierie Tackipotcikan and the Projet d’harmonisation . They will probably also contribute to the further development of the relationship.

Many of the expectations listed in Table 14 are similar, but involve differences of interpretation that could lead to misunderstandings. Both the industry and the Atikamekw are seeking to change forestry practices to take account of Atikamekw interests. But for the Atikamekw, this means protecting aski (all parts of the forest ecosystem), as well their occupation and life on Nitaskinan . In contrast, the industry adopts a narrower interpretation of Atikamekw interests, concentrating on physical sites related to activities such as hunting. Likewise, both parties seek improved consultation and the application of Atikamekw information and knowledge in forest management. The industry wants information that can be used in forest planning processes, leading to changes that protect specified Atikamekw sites or uses of the territory. However, Atikamekw prefer that their knowledge should be used in accordance with their customs and values, and that this include participation in decision-making. Expectations that are similar, but carry different shades of meaning, may be the most critical for future relations and for the development of partnerships. Many analyses of partnerships around the world stress the need to carefully plan organisational goals and structures, and to be prepared to manage conflicts (Chambers 1999a; Mayers and Vermeulen 2002). These are issues where both the Atikamekw and the industry will have to ensure that the processes used to achieve these expectations do actually respond to the different interpretations of each party.

Some expectations may not be shared, but are still compatible with the interests of the other party. Many Atikamekw value opportunities that provide them with new skills and practices related to forestlands, while certification efforts are important for the industry but have attracted little Atikamekw interest. These can be achieved through a partnership if each party agrees to consider the interests of the other.

However, there are a number of Atikamekw expectations that are unlikely to be achieved within the existing forest management system. Recognising Aboriginal rights and obtaining greater autonomy are important for the Atikamekw, but will almost certainly require the government to change legislation. The Atikamekw seek to include their traditional institutions in contemporary forest management systems, but these systems are embedded in legislation, in the industry and in public uses of forests and are slow to change. Curran and M'Gonigle (1999) and Ross and Smith (2002) propose new forest tenure systems to enable First Nations to develop their own ways of managing forestlands.

Finally, the multiplicity of expectations both within and between these groups, demonstrates the difficulty of establishing partnerships between Atikamekw and the forest industry, or indeed in other cross-cultural situations (Mayers and Vermeulen 2002). Partners must be able to recognize not only their common interests, but also those areas where these interests diverge and where they may be in conflict. They need to take account of differing views within their communities, as well as those of others outside the partnership, such as governments and interest groups. Achieving these multiple expectations will mean modifying existing practices and organisations, developing ways to manage differences, and imagining new processes for coexistence.

The concept of a forest management system was introduced in Chapter 1 to describe the institutions and practices associated with the management of forestlands. Miller, Gale et al. (1987) examined the evolution of the US forest management system over several centuries, considering ways that views and expectations of forests have changed, and how governments, industry and other parties developed knowledge, processes and institutions to improve forest management. These elements are similar to the concepts underlying forestry paradigms (section 8.2.1).

Québec’s forest management system, the existing forestry regime, was described in Chapter 3. The regime has developed over several centuries, balancing the roles of the industry and the state in the use and management of forest resources to produce timber. It is based on rational scientific management in which companies optimise timber production within constraints such as sustainable yield, government regulations and the economic condition of the industry (Bouthillier 2001; Curran and M'Gonigle 1999; Duerr et al. 1982). Other users of forestlands, including the Atikamekw, are consulted within this system to identify their interests and ways that these may be accommodated. First Nations are increasingly participating in this system through forestry companies such as Services forestiers Atikamekw Aski and partnerships such as the Scierie Tackipotcikan. However, such participation obliges First Nations to conform with the regime, developed by the government and the industry. It offers limited opportunities for First Nations to adopt different ways of managing forestlands (Ross and Smith 2002).

The Atikamekw forest management system has developed over several thousand years to support Atikamekw life on the forestlands of Nitaskinan . Through several sub-studies I have identified elements of Tipahiskan, the Atikamekw approach to managing forestlands. However, the existence of this approach is not generally recognised by the forest industry. Chart 10 summarizes the principal elements of Tipahiskan , and this should be compared with the characteristics of Québec’s forestry regime presented in section 3.3.1 (page 101). This approach integrates Atikamekw knowledge, values, practices and customs concerning how to live on Nitaskinan . It also includes the social institutions developed to facilitate these practices, such as trapping circuits, the role of the ka nikanitc in coordinating occupation, and story telling to transmit knowledge and values. Tipahiskan reflects the Atikamekw relationship and engagement with Nitaskinan (Feit 2000; Poirier 2001); it is a way of guiding human life and activities.

Tipahiskan is both traditional and contemporary, and is still applied by many Atikamekw through occupation of Nitaskinan . However, it is also being weakened; knowledge is eroded, not all Atikamekw maintain practices and youth are not always taught (or wish to learn) traditional ways. As forestry operations change the landscape, knowledge and places become less relevant. If the ka nikantic is not consulted about activities on the natoho aski , then his ability to advise others is reduced. The Atikamekw forest management system remains in practice, but it is threatened by the forestry regime.

Chart 10 Tipahiskan - An Atikamekw approach to managing forestlands

Characteristics of Tipahiskan presented in Chart 10 also support the analysis of Folke, Berkes et al. (1998) who examined the interrelation of ecological practices and social mechanisms in traditional resource management systems. They stress that practices cannot be separated from the social institutions that support these practices. Furthermore, attempts to use traditional knowledge in contemporary resource management must take account of the culture in which this knowledge is embedded. Atikamekw knowledge cannot be properly applied without acknowledging Tipahiskan .

The contributions of Ingold (1996) and Folke, Berkes et al. (1998) indicate an important difference in the goals of the two forest management. In the industrial system, the forest is a natural resource, managed to produce benefits for humans. Management actions are frequently aimed at changing or “improving” the forest in order to provide increased quantities of benefits. Within multiple-use or ecosystem forest management these benefits could include timber for industry, fauna for hunters or biodiversity for conservationists. However, Tipahiskan is principally concerned with guiding peoples’ actions in occupying and using notcimik , rather than modifying or improving aski. This follows from the Atikamekw engagement with Nitaskinan and the view of management as part of a social system for living on forestlands. For the Atikamekw, forestlands are not just a resource to be used and managed.

Although there is a fundamental difference between these two views, Tipahiskan may also provide an opportunity for new consultation processes between Atikamekw and the forest industry. Within Tipahiskan, the ka nikantic has a role of bringing together different users of forestlands in order to determine how the needs and actions of each will affect other users, the resources available and forestlands themselves. Each user is assumed to have knowledge concerning forestlands and practices, and to share this knowledge with others. Hence, a consultation process with a key role for ka nikantic could provide a model for recognising the knowledge, practices and institutions of both the industry and the Atikamekw. Such an approach would not oblige either the industry or the Atikamekw to change their own views of nature and culture. However, it would mean changing power, rights and responsibilities within the forest management system

The power and rights held by different groups is a central issue in participation; people often choose to participate in forestry because they wish to change forest management (Buchy and Hoverman 2000). Power and rights are an element of forestry paradigms as they determine the extent to which a group can promote their views, knowledge and techniques as a basis for decision-making about occupation and use of forestlands. This is an element where there is an important imbalance between the forest industry and the Atikamekw.

Atikamekw occupation of Nitaskinan should not be considered only in terms of “traditional” activities and knowledge; it also represents a contemporary way of life that combines both forestlands and village life. Atikamekw practices and management systems have changed since the arrival of Kawapisit in the Haute-Mauricie. The Atikamekw have integrated, and continue to integrate, new developments into their lifestyle, adapting these ideas and experiences to their own way of living on forestlands. Poirier (2000) proposes the term “contemporaneity” to indicate this synthesis of traditional culture and the modernity of the dominant society. Atikamekw participation in forestry, and projects such as the Scierie Tackipotcikan, is a part of this process, enabling the Atikamekw to continue to occupy and use Nitaskinan . However, the relative lack of Atikamekw rights and power in comparison to the forest industry raises the question of whether the Atikamekw will be able to maintain their own understanding of forestlands, or whether they will be assimilated into the dominant forest industry paradigm.

But the forest industry itself is also facing a need to develop a more contemporary approach to forest management. The traditional emphasis on timber production has been widely criticized, is in decline and may even be disappearing, and forestry is evolving towards greater recognition of ecological and social values (Adamowicz and Veeman 1998; Kennedy et al. 1998; Kimmins 2002). New forestry paradigms^[169], such as ecosystem management and natural disturbance, are being proposed, and forest policies, government regulations and certification processes are recognizing the variety of non-timber values associated with forestlands. Furthermore, forestry regimes now include public consultation processes that will almost certainly promote changes in forestland management. The Atikamekw, and other First Nations, use these processes to promote their view of forestlands, hopefully contributing to a greater mutual understanding of the different paradigms presented in this thesis. For Dupuis (2001), legislation and Aboriginal rights need to be complemented by discussions and forums to promote comprehension and convergence on relations between First Nations and Euro-Canadian society. Given the importance of forestlands to both First Nations and the industry, a synthesis of different views could contribute to a contemporaneity in forestry.

Hence, contemporaneity is a concept that can apply to both the Atikamekw and to the forest industry. The Atikamekw continue to develop their contemporary society by integrating forestry (and other) developments into their own paradigm. Similarly, the industry is developing a contemporary forestry by adapting its paradigm to the presence of the Atikamekw and other forest users. Furthermore, the availability of resources and use of forestlands is changing the way that both the industry and the Atikamekw understand these forestlands. The forestry paradigms of each group are dynamic rather than static, as are forestlands themselves. As noted by Freudenberg et al. (1995) and Milton (1996), relationships between people and their environment are reciprocal; forest characteristics affect paradigms, and people’s actions based on these paradigms affect forestlands. Bouthillier (2001) refers to this as a co-evolutionary approach. Forestlands, the Atikamekw and the industry are all adjusting to each other, and to the changes that are occurring. Contemporaneity for forestlands, for the industry and for the Atikamekw is clearly a complex process, rather than a solution or a fixed point.

Contemporary occupation and management of forestlands does not mean that the industry must organise its activities in the Haute-Mauricie forests in accordance with the Atikamekw paradigm. Nor does it mean that the Atikamekw should be obliged to occupy Nitaskinan in accordance with the industry paradigm, whether contemporary or not. Instead it implies coexistence, where both industry and Atikamekw modify their own practices by adopting some of the ideas of the other, and where paradigms evolve to representing changes in values, in knowledge and in practices.

The forest industry paradigm has been based on timber production, but is increasingly accepting other forest values and uses. New approaches to forestland management may be able to respond to both Atikamekw and industry paradigms. Ecosystem management, acknowledging forestlands as complex relationships between plants, animals, water and even humans, is a particularly important approach (Aley et al. 1999). Ecosystems can be likened to the Atikamekw concept of aski , and ecosystem management may provide a framework appropriate to First Nations values and practices concerning forestlands (Curran and M'Gonigle 1999). But ecosystem management often emphasises a highly scientific and technical approach based on expert analysis of biological and social factors, rather than more democratic people-oriented actions (Freemuth 1996). This technical approach would provide little place for Atikamekw knowledge, Tipahiskan or their participation in decision-making. However, alternative forms of ecosystem management may serve as useful bridges between paradigms.

Consultation and participation processes are gaining increasing importance in international forestry as ways of enabling the public, and indigenous peoples, to contribute to forest management (Buchy and Hoverman 2000; IMIOFDP 1996; NAFA 1995c; Yamasaki et al. 2001). These processes can lead to specific changes in forest management as requested by participants, and can also contribute to an improved understanding of the points of view held by others. Working together, participants in consultation processes can develop new ideas and options for management of forestlands (Daniels and Walker 1997).

Mapping and documenting of traditional knowledge, occupation and land use has been undertaken in Canada since the 1970s, initially through anthropological and social science experience and then developing more broadly (Robinson 1999). Similar studies were undertaken in the 1980s and early 1990s documenting Atikamekw occupation of Nitaskinan , describing their traditional management systems, and investigation their understanding of forestlands (AMAA 1994; Dandenault 1983). Atikamekw proposals to use this information to promote integrated management of the Haute-Mauricie were rejected by the industry and the government in the 1990s, but the information is now being used by the Projet d’harmonisation to support negotiations with forestry companies. Although efforts at mapping and documenting traditional knowledge have contributed to academic understanding, the use of this information by forestry companies has been problematic for both parties. These approaches have rarely led to First Nations participation in management (Robinson and Ross 1997) and the cultural context of knowledge is often lost in the process of researching, mapping and integrating into forestry plans (Natcher 2001). The inclusion of traditional knowledge in forestland management is important, but this needs to be treated as part of a process that considers Atikamekw and industry needs for information, ways of sharing this, and decision-making based on the knowledge.

Chart 10 presents key characteristics of Tipahiskan , the Atikamekw approach to management of forestlands. Integration of this approach with contemporary management practices originating with the industrial paradigm provides an important option for coexistence. Folke, Berkes et al (1998) emphasize the importance of social-ecological systems, noting that they contribute to maintaining stability by improving learning and the capacity to respond to changes. Tipahiskan provides a context for the utilisation of traditional knowledge in forestland management, reducing the potential for some of the problems described by Robinson and Ross (1997) and Natcher (2001). The central role of ka nikanitc in Tipahiskan also provides a mechanism to improve consultation between Atikamekw and the forestry companies.

However, Tipahiskan should not be perceived as simply a way of facilitating consultation. Rather, the integration of Tipahiskan would require that the ka nikanitc become an integral member of a group responsible for planning and implementing management of forestlands. Management would need to address the full range of forest values and uses with Atikamekw fauna and historical information having an equal place alongside forest stand information. Participation of the ka nikanitc would help to ensure that Atikamekw information was interpreted and used in accordance with customs. Consistent with such an approach, planning areas would need to recognise the limits of Atikamekw family territories as areas outside a territory would require the participation of another ka nikanitc . Logging and management practices used by the industry would almost certainly need to be modified in recognition of Atikamekw respect for Aski (the forest ecosystem) and of the importance of notcimik for their identity. Integration of Tipahiskan as part of contemporary management of forestlands is unlikely to be easy or quickly achieved, but it does address several of the characteristics identified in Table 13 and provides an important option for coexistence. Conversely, failure to integrate elements of Tipahiskan will maintain the dominance of the industrial forestry paradigm in the management of forestlands and contribute to a continuing erosion of Atikamekw culture.

Industry forest practices are a major concern for First Nations across Canada, contributing to efforts to harmonize industry and indigenous practices through consultations, negotiations, protests and various management structures (Iisaak n/d; NAFA/IOG 2000; Ross and Smith 2002). Processes such as the Atikamekw Projet d’harmonisation enable First Nations and the industry to negotiate modifications to forestry practices. But such negotiations inevitably require compromises, and agreements may reflect the greater power and resources of the industry, leaving First Nations believing that these processes do not protect their interests (Feit and Beaulieu 2001). This is also an approach that remains within the dominant forest management system, offering little scope for other characteristics of forestry paradigms.

The last thirty years have seen significant progression in the definition and recognition of Aboriginal rights by the courts and by the government. Judicial decisions have lead to new obligations on governments and the forest industry to take account of these rights in forest management (House 1998). Aboriginal rights established in treaties and agreements have also extended First Nations’ roles in forestry, but have not necessarily recognised the inherent or “undefined” rights attached to Aboriginal title (Asch and Zlotkin 1997). Although these processes have established opportunities and rules for coexistence of First Nations and the forest industry, they have also involved distrust and uncertainty. According to Asch and Zlotkin (1997), the settlement of outstanding territorial disputes should be based on a better relationship between First Nations and Canada, and this will necessitate the affirmation of Aboriginal title. Dupuis (2001) also recommends a wide-ranging review of legislation to acknowledge Aboriginal rights and that judicial processes should be used as a final, rather than an initial, option. She also proposes the establishment of forums to promote closer links between First Nations and non-Aboriginals.

Co-management arrangements have been promoted as a means of resolving issues of rights, decision-making and practical management of forestlands (Berkes et al. 1991; Notzke 1995; Robinson 1999). This most commonly means the establishment of a management authority that is equally responsible to a First Nation and to one or more governments, but has also been extended to include First nation – industry arrangements (Chambers 1999a). Co-management authorities may be mandated to undertake extensive consultation, to incorporate both traditional and scientific knowledge into their management practices, and even to build on traditional management systems. Natcher (2000) notes the advantages of co-management, but also stresses the need for flexibility in developing arrangements that respond to local goals and needs. One of the strengths of co-management is its potential for using both local knowledge and capacity and government technical, institutional and financial resources. However, existing co-management regimes often resemble government bureaucracies based on technical expertise, with traditional knowledge and institutions in a secondary position (Rodon 2003). If co-management arrangements are to realise their potential, they will almost certainly need to incorporate elements of traditional, government and industrial management systems if they are to benefit from these strengths.

An alternative to co-management is the creation of new forest tenure arrangements for First Nations within existing forestry regimes. Curran and M'Gonigle (1999) and Ross and Smith (2002) note that existing forest management systems disadvantage First Nations’ participation and restrain their ability to manage forestlands in ways that are appropriate to their culture. As previously described, both Services forestiers Atikamekw Aski and Scierie Tackipotcikan are contractually bound under the Québec forestry regime and have only limited scope to introduce management practices that respond to the Atikamekw paradigm. The forest tenure approach creates an important institutional space within the existing regime that could allow the Atikamekw to manage forests on Nitaskinan in ways different to that of the forest industry. Modifications to Québec’s Forestry Act in May 2001 introduced a new form of tenure, the Contrat d’aménagement forestier , that responds to some of the suggestions of Ross and Smith. The Algonquin community of Kitigan Zibi (Maniwaki) is currently the only group to have obtained this type of forest management contract from the MRNQ^[171], and SFAA will hold such a contract for the timber volume previously allocated to the Scierie Tackipotcikan^[172]. These arrangements allow forest management activities without the obligation to also own timber processing mill (a requirement under the CAAF and an element criticized by the above authors). However, these revised tenure arrangements remain within the framework of the existing regime, and so the Atikamekw may still be expected to conform to the industry paradigm.

Scierie Tackipotcikan and SFAA are both examples of business arrangements between First Nations and the forest industry. Many, if not all, First Nations are concerned about employment and about economic development, and the use of resources from forestlands provides such benefits. Although business opportunities such as recreation and non-timber forest products exist (Mitchell 1998), the forest industry provides the most important economic opportunities in Canada’s forestlands. Business arrangements, such as contracting and partnerships, enable First Nations to be employed in forestry, gaining income and learning new skills (Mayers and Vermeulen 2002; NAFA/IOG 2000). These arrangements also provide benefits for the industry, such as avoiding conflict and gaining access to timber supplies.

“Green” or “heritage” accounting is recent approach to countering the financial bias of traditional methods of determining the costs and benefits of forestland management. Adamowicz, Beckley et al. (1998) considered the problems of using conventional nonmarket valuation techniques in natural resource management, and especially in cross-cultural settings with indigenous peoples. The green accounting approach enables comparison of different scenarios for forestlands management. It serves as a tool for supporting discussions and decisions about management and for revising scenarios, rather than as a way of choosing the “best” option. This approach has been tested with the forest industry in the Haute-Mauricie (Beaulieu 2002), and is now being explored with the Atikamekw (Bergeron and Bouthillier 2002). The proposed model includes quantitative evaluations of financial, economic and social costs and benefits, as well as a fourth qualitative analysis considering impacts of forestry on the Atikamekw lifestyle. This approach may assist both the Atikamekw and the industry to evaluate different management options for forestlands. The economic fundamentals of the approach may be more acceptable to industry financial analysts than other methods of consultation.

Dubois (1986) examined the professional beliefs of foresters in Québec noting the effects of education, practical experience and role models on these. Professional forestry education in Québec includes only very limited material on issues of First Nations involvement in forestry. The situation is slightly better in some other provinces and several universities offer courses in Aboriginal aspects of forestry (Smith 2002). The important role of foresters in forestland management and the importance of First Nations’ traditional lands in supplying the forest industry suggests that foresters need to have a greater knowledge of First Nations, of their forestry paradigms, and of their potential role in forestlands management. Some foresters develop an appreciation of First Nations through personal contacts and practical experience, but this often remains within the framework of industry-Aboriginal relations. Similarly, there is a shortage of First Nations members who are trained in forestland management, at either technical or professional levels, leading to a forest industry where First Nations’ views are rarely represented. There are several forestry technicians among the Atikamekw, and another is completing professional training to become an ingenieur forestier, but the forest industry in the Haute-Mauricie is almost exclusively Euro-Canadian, with little knowledge of the Atikamekw. Education, training and personal development opportunities could contribute to greater mutual understanding and facilitate coexistence of Atikamekw and the forest industry.