IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v105y2021ics0264837721000685.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A ‘New Relationship’? Reflections on British Columbia’s 2003 Forest Revitalization Plan from the perspective of the Li̓l̓wat First Nation

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, Tonya
  • Bulkan, Janette

Abstract

One of the ways that Indigenous peoples are seeking recognition of their rights to ancestral and traditional territories is through increased participation in the forestry sector. Participating in forestry represents tangible recognition of the Li̓l̓wat First Nation’s rights and allows progress towards strategic management of their territories. This study presents evidence from five years of collaborative qualitative research in the Li̓l̓wat Nation to understand how forestry is creating new opportunities and constraints for the community, and how forestry interacts with Li̓l̓wat Inherent Rights. Through government reforms, the Li̓l̓wat Nation is replacing and working together with non-Indigenous companies and the provincial government to improve protection for cultural sites and ways of being. However, the legacy of the colonial forestry regime continues to impact relationships in forestry today, and changes to forest policy have brought both new opportunities and constraints for the Li̓l̓wat Nation. This article reviews Li̓l̓wat First Nation’s evolving relationship with the forestry sector in their traditional territories in British Columbia (BC), Canada, and provides a nuanced look at one Indigenous Nation’s experience with becoming increasingly linked to global forest products markets while maintaining community objectives around self-determination.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, Tonya & Bulkan, Janette, 2021. "A ‘New Relationship’? Reflections on British Columbia’s 2003 Forest Revitalization Plan from the perspective of the Li̓l̓wat First Nation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721000685
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105345
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721000685
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105345?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger Hayter & Trevor J. Barnes, 2012. "Neoliberalization and Its Geographic Limits: Comparative Reflections from Forest Peripheries in the Global North," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 88(2), pages 197-221, April.
    2. Roger Hayter & Trevor J. Barnes, 2012. "Neoliberalization and Its Geographic Limits: Comparative Reflections from Forest Peripheries in the Global North," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 88(2), pages 197-221, April.
    3. Hoberg, George & Malkinson, Leah & Kozak, Laura, 2016. "Barriers to innovation in response to regulatory reform: Performance-based forest practices regulation in British Columbia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 2-10.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Eugenia Giraudo & Jean Grugel, 2022. "Imaginaries of Soy and the Costs of Commodity‐led Development: Reflections from Argentina," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 53(4), pages 796-826, July.
    2. Bjørnar Sæther & Eivind Merok, 2019. "The Construction and Deconstruction of a Norwegian Forest Industrial Regime 1980-2017," PEGIS geo-disc-2019_04, Institute for Economic Geography and GIScience, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    3. Jonathan S Davies & Ismael Blanco, 2017. "Austerity urbanism: Patterns of neo-liberalisation and resistance in six cities of Spain and the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(7), pages 1517-1536, July.
    4. Julie A. Silva & Nicole Motzer, 2015. "Hybrid Uptakes of Neoliberal Conservation in Namibian Tourism-based Development," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 46(1), pages 48-71, January.
    5. Štěrbová, Martina & Stojanovski, Vladimir & Weiss, Gerhard & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2019. "Innovating in a traditional sector: Innovation in forest harvesting in Slovakia and Macedonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Anne Vogelpohl & Tino Buchholz, 2017. "Breaking With Neoliberalization by Restricting The Housing Market: Novel Urban Policies and the Case of Hamburg," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 266-281, March.
    7. Jarmo Kortelainen & Pertti Rannikko, 2015. "Positionality Switch: Remapping Resource Communities in Russian Borderlands," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 91(1), pages 59-82, January.
    8. Christian Sellar & Rudolf Pástor, 2015. "Mutating Neoliberalism: The Promotion of Italian Investors in Slovakia before and after the Global Financial Crisis," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 342-360, March.
    9. George Atisa, 2020. "Policy adoption, legislative developments, and implementation: the resulting global differences among countries in the management of biological resources," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 141-159, March.
    10. DeBoer, Jennifer & Panwar, Rajat & Kozak, Robert & Cashore, Benjamin, 2020. "Squaring the circle: Refining the competitiveness logic for the circular bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721000685. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.