Participatory mapping for eco-cultural restoration on Xaxli’p Survival Territory,
British Columbia, Canada
Sibyl Diver
University of California - Berkeley
Herb Hammond
Silva Ecosystem Consultants, Ltd.
Art Adolph
Xaxli’p (Fountain Band)
sdiver@berkeley.edu,
hhammond@netidea.com,
amadolph@telus.net1
Abstract
Xaxli’p (Fountain Band) is one of eleven indigenous communities that make up the St’at’imc
Nation (The Lillooet Tribe) in southwestern British Columbia.
This case describes how
participatory mapping has been an effective tool for asserting Xaxli’p ownership and management
control of Xaxli’p Survival Territory as well as helping to protect and reinstate Xaxli’p culture.
From 1997 to present, the Xaxli'p community has engaged in land use planning and mapping that
follows Xaxli’p values of culturally and ecologically sustainable land management. The two main
planning documents are the Ntsuwa’lhkalha Tl’ákmen, “Our Way of Life” or Xaxli’p Traditional
Use Study (TUS) and the Xaxli’p Ecosystem-based Plan (EBP). For over ten years, the TUS and
EBP have contributed to Xaxli’p advocacy strategies for treaty negotiations and forest
management. More recently, Xaxli’p has negotiated a Community Forest Agreement tenure with
the provincial government and begun eco-cultural restoration. This case provides insight into
combining traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge for eco-cultural restoration, and
community-based resource management that is grounded in egalitarian principles.
1
This Community Forest Agreement discussed in this article is the product of a thirty-year collaboration between
the Xaxli’p Band www.xaxlip.ca and advisor and consultant, Herb Hammond, a forest ecologist at Silva Ecosystem
Consultants, Ltd. www.silvafor.org.
1
1. A story of protecting Xaxli’p Survival Territory
I first learned about the Xaxli’p community in 2000 when I led an international exchange program for
Russian grassroots indigenous leaders to discuss indigenous land rights issues with Pacific Northwest
indigenous communities. Xaxli’p is one of eleven indigenous communities that make up the St’at’imc
Nation (The Lillooet Tribe) in southwestern British Columbia, Canada.
Despite evidence of 9,000 years of Xaxli’p occupancy on their Survival Territory, an area of about
31,419 hectares or 121 sq. miles, the land is classified as government-owned land by British Columbia. It
is ecologically sensitive terrain with steep, complex slopes and dry forests. Yet the British Columbia
Ministry of Forests and Range claims that 70% of the land is appropriate for commercial timber. This has
led to decades of unsustainable high-grade logging and clearcutting of forests on Xaxli’p Survival
Territory, which the community has long sought to change.
First Nations communities in Canada have been working to address aboriginal land rights issues for
decades.
In the early 1990s, Canadian Supreme Court decisions favoring aboriginal rights and the
creation of the British Columbia Treaty Process created additional opportunities for change. Xaxli’p has
responded by developing its own vision and strategy for protecting Xaxli’p Survival Territory – the core
territory traditionally used by the Xaxli’p community. In 1997, Xaxli’p began developing a series of maps
and plans, the Xaxli’p Traditional Use Study and Ecosystem Based Plan: key planning and negotiation
tools, incorporating Xaxli’p values for culturally and ecologically sustainable land use. Today, these maps
and plans are still in use, guiding eco-cultural restoration on Xaxli’p Survival Territory.
Ten years after my first introduction, I am continuing to learn from Xaxli’p as a graduate student
researcher.
I have recently been invited to join Xaxli’p workshops on eco-cultural restoration as a
participant observer, and have interviewed community members about their experience negotiating a
Community Forest Agreement tenure. For this case study, I will first discuss how Xaxli’p maps and plans
are informed by both traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge. Second, I will address how Xaxli’p
has used the maps and plans to assert management control over its Survival Territory, including
negotiating a Community Forest Agreement. Third, I will consider current Xaxli’p implementation of ecocultural restoration.
2. Xaxli’p maps and plans
Xaxli’p mapping and planning initiatives followed several attempts by Xaxli’p to negotiate shared
decision-making over land use with British Columbia.
By 1997, Xaxli’p and the Province of British
Columbia had developed an Integrated Resource Management Strategy (IRMS).
The IRMS was
intended as a framework for joint decision-making about land use on Xaxli’p Survival Territory; however,
Xaxli’p was still dissatisfied with its ability to influence government policies affecting Xaxli’p Survival
Territory.
2
2-1 Managing for Xaxli’p values: ‘land as family’
Discussions of land use at Xaxli’p typically begin with Xaxli’p values. Xaxli’p values are based on a
‘kincentric’ view of land management, and require holistic approaches to land use:
The starting place for Xaxli’p values is to think about 'land as family.' Xaxli’p ancestors
lived in this place (the Fountain Valley and adjacent lands) for centuries and perhaps for
thousands of years…
For Xaxli’p, the land is part of who they are. In the Xaxli’p language, the name for the
“land” is Tmixw, the name for the “people” is Uxwalmixw and the name for the “language”
is Uxwalmixwts. These three words are closely related in the language of the Xaxli’p
people and show how the land, the people, and the language are all powerfully tied
together.
…An important value is ‘what you do to one you do to all.’ This means that when you
damage one part of the three (land, people, and language) you damage all… [Emphasis
added]
-- 1997 Integrated Resource Management Strategy For the Xaxli’p Territory
2-2 Mapping cultural and ecological information
The Xaxli’p Traditional Use Study and the Ecosystem-based Plan were separate initiatives with a
common goal of asserting Xaxli’p control over Xaxli’p Survival Territory and protecting Xaxli’p culture.
In 1997, Xaxli'p worked with cultural mapper Martin Weinstein to initiate the Ntsuwa’lhkalha Tl’ákmen,
“Our Way of Life” or Xaxli’p Traditional Use Study (TUS). The TUS was a community-based initiative that
mapped aboriginal land use and occupancy. The Xaxli’p mapping team asked elders, “During your entire
life, tell us about how you used the land.” The interview team was made up of one person interviewing
who spoke Xaxli’p language, one person taping, and one person drawing the map. Besides interviews, a
helicopter brought elders to fishing camps and hunting areas to document stories, photograph and record
place names. The place names refer to land formations and legends of historical events that occurred at
those places.
Art Adolph explains, “It is through the ‘place names’ of a geographical area that our
relationship to the land comes alive.”
A computer-based Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to create digital maps and analyze
the data. First, interviews were transcribed, translated, and coded for the type of land use, such as plant
use, hunting, or fishing location. The data was compiled into individual “map biographies” representing
the spiritual and historical knowledge held by Xaxli’p individuals.
combined to create thematic maps of traditional use.
Individual map biographies were
In this way, the TUS maps helped represent a
complex cultural system of how Xaxli’p made use of its resources and territory.2
2
For more background on Traditional Use and Occupancy Studies, see Terry N. Tobias’ guidebooks Chief Kerry’s
Moose (2000) and Living Proof (2009) available at http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/Resources/tus.htm.. Also see Martin
Weinstein articles “Getting to Use in Traditional Use” (1997) http://nativemaps.org/node/1420 and "Sharing
Information or Captured Heritage: Access to community geographic knowledge and the state's responsibility to
protect aboriginal rights in British Columbia." http://nativemaps.org/node/1421.
3
In 1996, Xaxli’p started their Ecosystem-based Plan (EBP), a community-based approach to land use
planning was developed by Herb Hammond at Silva Ecosystem Consultants. Using community input and
landscape ecology science, Hammond seeks to gain an understanding of ecosystem composition,
structure, and function. Hammond then creates GIS maps of the planning area at multiple spatial scales.
These maps are used by Hammond and the community to help create a culturally and ecologically
sustainable land use plan, based on ecological limits and restoration needs.
Hammond describes his approach as, “Focus on what to protect… then on what to use.” He uses
aerial photos, community input, and field work to identify areas at the landscape scale that need to be
protected as “ecological reserves.”
These areas include naturally rare or unique ecosystems,
representative ecosystems, habitat for keystone or threatened species, riparian ecosystems, or
ecologically sensitive sites, such as steep slopes. Hammond then maps an ecosystem reserve network,
including linkages that tie the network together. As a final step, Hammond works with the community to
develop diverse ecologically sustainable economies that are community-based and located in appropriate
areas within the landscape.3
Integrating their Traditional Use Study and Ecosystem-based Plan included overlaying sensitive
cultural areas and sensitive ecological areas together on the map to generate “no-go zones.”
For
example, a large portion of culturally important areas from the TUS was defined as “Xaxli’p Culture Use
Protection Area,” and Xaxli’p place names were also printed on maps. These cultural locations were then
displayed in relation to ecological reserves, such as ecologically sensitive sites and old-growth forests,
identified by the EBP.
At a more fundamental level, the two approaches are both simultaneously tied to both culture and
ecology.
In the view of some Xaxli’p leaders, elders strongly supported the Ecosystem-based Plan
because it effectively translates Xaxli’p traditional knowledge about the importance of protecting whole
ecosystems – the water, the berries, the animals, the trees – into scientific language. Similarly, scientists
working for Xaxli’p have noted that the Traditional Use Study maps reflect the historical ecology of the
area. For example, given the dry landscape of Xaxli’p Survival Territory, moist areas show up on the
maps both as important cultural use areas and as ecological reserves. Although they do not replicate one
another perfectly, the TUS and the EBP reinforce each other.
3. Asserting Xaxli’p management control
Both the TUS and EBP have been powerful tools for effectively articulating Xaxli’p values for culturally
and ecologically sustainable land use to government managers, and others. Xaxli’p has used the plans
3
For more background on Ecosystem-Based Planning, see Herb Hammond’s publications, including Maintaining
Whole Systems on Earth’s Crown: Ecosystem-based Conservation Planning for the Boreal Forest (2009),
http://www.silvafor.org/publications.
4
for controlling land use on Xaxli’p Survival Territory, directing treaty negotiations, as well as designing and
implementing Xaxli’p lands management policy.
3-1 Negotiations: setting a new standard and enforcing it
The Traditional Use Study played an important role in “putting people back on the land.” Prior to the
TUS, government officials had viewed Xaxli’p territory as it is presented on agency maps – with no
evidence of human use.
Martin Weinstein described the attitude of government officials in treaty
negotiations, “[They thought] that just because of this piece of paper, there is no use [by the
community]… that [they had] all the information.” However, when the TUS was presented during treaty
negotiations, Xaxli’p people demonstrated to government officials, “The maps are no longer blank.”
Although government funding was offered, Xaxli’p decided to fund the TUS with their own discretionary
funds instead, so the maps and traditional knowledge are fully controlled by Xaxli’p.
The Ecosystem-based Plan was used to help define science-based standards for ecosystem
restoration and to redefine sustainable forestry with the British Columbia Ministry of Forests.
B.C.
provincial forestry plans previously classified approximately 70% of the Xaxli’p territory as appropriate for
commercial timber extraction. The EBP analysis, however, revealed that much of Xaxli’p land is an
ecologically or culturally sensitive landscape. Some selective logging in areas defined by the Ecosystembased Plan might be appropriate for about 30% of the territory. Thus, the EBP maps helped shift the
provincial government’s understanding of sustainable land use on Xaxli’p Survival Territory.
Using the EBP, Xaxli’p also worked with Herb Hammond to develop a concise Xaxli’p Forest Policy,
which the community circulated to other land managers operating within Xaxli’p territory. In several
cases, Xaxli’p and its advisors notified land managers that their actions violated Xaxli’p policy, and could
only occur if the EBP was followed. In addition to its Forest Policy, Xaxli’p was also able to control the
main road providing access to Xaxli’p Survival Territory, and had previously blockaded the road to
prevent logging access. In this way, Xaxli’p has been able to deter the provincial government from
issuing logging permits to timber companies, stop mineral prospecting, and change land use within
Xaxli’p Survival Territory. The EBP also set the course for Xaxli’p to begin implementing communitybased forest management initiatives on its territory, including a self-managed commercial thinning project.
3-2 Gaining a new land tenure: A Community Forest Agreement
In 1998 and again in 2000, British Columbia’s Ministry of Forests first offered Probationary Community
Forest Agreements (PCFAs) to a small number of communities, as a new tool for increasing participation
by communities and First Nations in local forest management. Xaxli’p community leaders and advisors
studied the policy and determined that they wished to pursue a PCFA. Although the Ministry of Forests
would still oversee the agreement, it would provide Xaxli’p an area-based land tenure and de facto
management control over Xaxli’p Survival Territory. Xaxli’p envisioned its existing TUS and EBP as the
key policies guiding its Community Forest.
5
Xaxli’p’s first attempt to obtain a Probationary Community Forest Agreement (PCFA) was in 2001.
Through the B.C. treaty negotiation process, Xaxli’p negotiated an Interim Measures Agreement with
provincial government that included a PCFA. However, at a Xaxli’p community meeting, the majority of
attendees voted against the Interim Measures Agreement, ending treaty negotiations and the PCFA
proposal. A second opportunity for Xaxli’p to acquire a PCFA arose in 2002-2003, thanks to support from
key government officials.
Xaxli’p did not submit documentation in time, however, and government
supporters moved on. Finally, in September 2006, after lengthy negotiations, Xaxli’p and the provincial
government signed a Forest and Range Opportunity (FRO) Agreement, which formally invited a Xaxli’p
Probationary Community Forest Agreement Application.
Aligning political support from the government and the community for a Xaxli’p Community Forest
Agreement was a challenge. From the community side, one issue was that the proposed Community
Forest Agreement became entangled with internal community politics and concerns over costs. From the
provincial government side, one concern was that issuing a Community Forest Agreement tenure through
FRO negotiations would set a precedent, which the government suspected it could not afford to replicate
given that most forest land in B.C. has already been leased to industry. However, these reasons are
complex and require discussion beyond the scope of this article.
Having the Community Forest Agreement has increased Xaxli’p management authority. Because it
provides an area-based tenure, no other users will be able to harvest timber and non-timber forest
products within the Community Forest area. In addition, the negotiated agreement requires that the
Xaxli’p Community Forest will be managed according to the Xaxli’p Ecosystem-based Plan and
Traditional Use Study, thereby ensuring that Xaxli’p land use values will guide management decisions.
For example, Xaxli’p will harvest less timber than recommended by the Ministry of Forests. Thus, Xaxli’p
will forgo some short-term income in order to fulfill its long-term eco-cultural restoration goals. As a result,
the provincial government will also receive smaller “stumpage” payments, i.e. annual payments based on
timber harvest volume. Despite increased community control, however, Xaxli’p is still required to meet
government planning requirements and standards for Community Forest Agreement tenures.
4. Implementing Xaxli’p management values: eco-cultural restoration
Through the Community Forest Agreement application process, Xaxli’p has hired and trained the
Xaxli’p Forest Crew, comprised of four Xaxli’p community members. The Forest Crew is now doing the
eco-cultural restoration work and is being trained in a way that departs from standard forestry school
approaches – using both traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge. The Forest Crew is supported
by the Xaxli’p Community Forest Corporation Board, a planning committee comprised of elders and
community members, a community forest manager, and long-time community advisor and consultant
Herb Hammond.
Translating the Ecosystem-based Plan and the Traditional Use Study into eco-cultural restoration
prescriptions has meant creating something new out of existing knowledge and plans. The restoration
6
planning process is an adaptive management approach that considers traditional knowledge, scientific
knowledge, and practical community concerns. Meetings among Xaxli’p elders, the Forest Crew, and
Xaxli’p advisors have been instrumental in establishing priority areas for initial restoration.
Although
traditional use patterns are important, following these patterns is not always practical. For example some
areas that were once important berry gathering sites are now too dry for that cultural use. It is important
to note that restoring healthy forests includes creating conditions that will support timber and non-timber
forest products for future harvest and sale, within appropriate areas on the landscape. Restoration sites
chosen thus far include traditional berry picking sites, old hunting trails, or deer birthing sites that have
become overstocked with small trees, due to lack of forest management.
The Xaxli’p Forest Crew is currently doing site assessments and restoration treatments, which
incorporate both traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge.
Assessments use many standard
forestry protocols, such as measuring tree height and age. However, assessments also involve surveying
for culturally important plants, as well as evaluating the size and spacing of old stumps to help reconstruct
what the forest once looked like. Restoration thinning has been used to clear areas around xusum
(soapberry bushes or Shepherdia canadensis) to increase berry growth for community gathering; cutting
small trees increases water and nutrient availability for the berry bushes.
5. Next steps for the Xaxli’p Community Forest
After years of negotiations, the ability to begin using the Ecosystem-based Plan and Traditional Use
Study to guide their actions on the land is an important step for Xaxli’p. However, there are many
challenges ahead, including funding and building community support. Although the Community Forest
Agreement currently receives government funding, Xaxli’p needs to find additional grant support, as well
as find a buyer for Xaxli’p’s ecologically and culturally sustainable timber harvests.
Building community support for the Community Forest is challenging, given the pressures from
dominant society to conform to more standard land use practices.
It has also been difficult losing
supportive elders, and there is a strong need to educate youth about Xaxli’p values. As youth are leaving
Xaxli’p to be educated in conventional natural resource management, some individuals are becoming
disconnected from Xaxli’p values for land use.
Community members today are also less likely to
voluntarily attend community meetings than in the past.
Despite the challenges, Xaxli’p’s persistence in asserting ownership and jurisdiction over their land
continues to be applied to the Xaxli’p Community Forest today. The Xaxli’p Community Forest Crew is
continuing its work restoring Xaxli’p Survival Territory.
Some community leaders expect community
support to grow with education and as individuals see the restoration work unfold on the land. There is
also a strong desire to involve children and their families in the restoration work, linking them back to
Xaxli’p sense of place.
7