National tibrary I*I of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON KI A ON4 Ottawa ON K1 A ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Libraxy of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic fonnats. la forme de microfiche/h, de

reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. . Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 11

Introduction ................... ,. ...................................................................................................... I Background ........................ ... ............................................................................................... 3

The Pine Mushroom (Tricholoma magnivelare) ................................................................... 3 The Pine Mushroorn Industry ............................~.................................................................. 3 The Nature of the Conflicts ........... ........... .................................................................... 5 The Context ........................................................................................................................... 6

Nisga'a Final Agreement and Self-Govemment ........... .. .............................................. 6 Political Geography ................... .. .................................................................................. 7

......................................................................... The Economic and Social Environment 10 ............................................................... ................... The Cultural Environment ...... I O

The Parties and their fnterests ............................................................................................. 11 Nisga'a Harvesters .......................................................................................................... 12

.................................................................................................. Non-Nisga'a Harvesters 12 Nisga'a Buyers ................................................................................................................ 13

...................................................................................................... Non-Nisga' a Buyers 14 ........................................................................................... Nisga'a Lisims Govemment 14

Nisga'a Lisims Govemment Department of Forest Resources ....................................... 16 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 17

Review of Literature .............................................................................................................. 18 Culture and Conflict ............................................................................................................ 18

............................................................................... Culture and the Resolution of Conflict 22 Culture and Multi-Party Disputes ....................................................................................... 27

Assessrnent of the Conflict ..................................................................................................... 30 ....................................................................................................................... Methodology 30

....................................................................................... Review of Previous Interventions 32 Perrnits ............................... .. ....................................................................................... 32 Public Comment .............................................................................................................. 33 Meetings .......................................................................................................................... 33 The Assessor ................................................................................................................... 34 The Interviews ................................................................................................................ 36

......................................................................................................... Results of Assessrnent 38 The Issues and Stakeholders ........................................................................................... 38

................................................................................. Category 1 - Environmental Issues 40 ......................................................................................... Category 2 - Economic Issues 41

............................................................................................... Category 3 - Social Issues 42 Category 4 - Jurisdictional Issues ................................................................................... 43 Category 5 - Permit Issues .............................................................................................. 44

...................................................................... Feasibility of a Dispute Resolution System 46 The Intervention ...................................................................................................................... 48 . . ............................................................................................. Oppominities and Constraints 49

The Design Process ............................................................................................................. 53 Education and Communication ....................................................................................... 54

.................................................................................... Defining an Appropriate Process 56 .................... Proposed Stnichire and the Process of the Intervention - Recommendations 60 . .

Education and Communication ....................................................................................... 60 ........................................................ Process Definition ... ................................................. 61

Issue Definition ............................................................................................................... 63 .................................................................................................... Interim Considerations 64

Context ............................................................................................................................ 66 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 67

............................................................................................................................... References 69 Appendix A ....................... ... ............................................................................................. A- 1 Appendix B ........................................................................................................................... B- 1

........................................................................................................................... Appendix C C- 1

INTRODUCTION

This paper analyses recent conflicts that have arisen with respect to the harvest of pine

rnushrooms (tricholoma magnivelare) on Nisga'a Lands in northwestern British Columbia

(Figure 1). in addition to an analysis of the conflict, the paper also proposes process

recommendations directed towards resolution of the issues surrounding the pine mushroom

hmest . Although implementation of an intervention lies beyond the scope of the project, the

intent is to develop recommendations with practical value for the parties to the current

conflict.

, . - . * . . 7 ' . .:.',.:... .a" . - . . -- ---. - ..* J ,' . . - . &. < '. . . 4: ' .

. . ., ?.- ; ::.. ,y,? -.- : ,. . , . )

% . . . --- -.:. <.ai% - .- . h 7 : ;a- .. - -,- - . ,. . .. - .. , '. . . - .+ . " - . - . - . . , - - ~. -- - _ - . '-.

. .. , - < . - , - ' .. ;

British Colum b ia . r - ? .? ': - j : i-; -..- -.-- - * _ . - . . .. - . b . .... , ;-, . - > . .. . .-

. a . ,: ;>., :-:-l--. - - - . . :-. - . , -- . - - - . . . '. . - . < . . . ._ c . - . .Stewart

. - ..- .'. . _. '. - . -. ' a ' . .v -. .-. . - . , - . *. < - ~ . . . . . . . y-. ..+ . -, . - , . - . , .-2 + . - .: .;.-- --)- : ,y2zf +-A Nisga'a - Lands

.. : -Je, ,- - > %" .. -. ,?. , *+ - - .- ..& .-

Prince : :-i r Terrace

Nisga'a Lisims Governinent Lands and

Figure 1 : Nisga'a Lands Resources Directorate, 200 1.

It is hoped that the results of this research effort will have value to Nisga'a Lisims

Governrnent (NLG) as it implements the provisions of its Final Agreement and consequent

legislation. At a more general level it is hoped that the paper will add to the analysis of

multi-party stakeholder conflicts and their resolution. In addition, issues such as this are

likely to xise in the context of other First Nation treaties. A contribution towards a

successful intervention in this situation may be of value to other First Nations as they make

the transition back to self-government.

BACKGROUND

The Pine Mushroom (Tricholoma magnivelare) The pine mushroom is one of a number of mushroom species in British Columbia that have

commercial value. Other commerciaIly- harvested species include chanterelles, morels and

boletes, but the pine mushroom has the highest commercial value (B.C. Ministry of Forests,

1995). It grows in many areas of the province, and is found in association with old stands of

lodge pole pine, western hemlock and Douglas fir (Berch, 1996, p.3). It can be found in

relative abundance in the Nass Valley. Pine mushrooms in Northern B.C. are found in forests

less than 200 years old. but not in areas of new logging. The forest needs to have an open

canopy that allows some light to reach the forest floor (Garniet, Ridenour and Philpot, 1998).

The Pine Mushroom Industry The pine rnushroom industry c m be very lucrative and attracts transient, as well as Nisga7a,

harvesters and buyers. The value of pine mushrooms to a local harvester can range from four

to fifty dollars per pound. The value of the same mushrooms in Japan can be many hundreds

of dollars per pound. The stakes are high and the harvesting season is short. Until recently

there was no formal regulatory fiamework in place to support management of the resource,

despite social, environmental and economic concerns.

The Governent of British Columbia does not currently regulate the pine mushroom harvest

anywhere in the province, although the matter has been under intermittent study since 1989.

A Task Force established in 1994 to consider the issues associated with botanical forest

products including the pine mushroom culminated in a document entitled Botanical Products

Overview. This document identified a number of issues requiring attention. These were

aggregated under general headings of:

sustainability,

multiple forest resource use,

revenue to government,

social and economic factors,

health and safety, and,

interagency coordination.

Specific issues ranged kom concem about the potential for violence among harvesters and

the risks associated with cash transactions to the impact of harvesting techniques on wildlife.

Despite the intensity and breadth of the concerns raised, the province has established no

replation of botanical forest products (B.C. Ministry of Forests, 1995).

The structure of the pine mushroom industry is quite straightfonvard. Exporters, mostly in

Vancouver, contract with buyers who work in the local comrnunities or at mushroom buying

depots at harvester's camps. The exporters provide cash to the buyers, and also set the price,

which with the advent of satellite telephones, can fluctuate hourly. Harvesters, both local

and transient, bnng mushrooms to buying depots where they are graded and weighed. Al1

transactions are in cash. Mushrooms are generally flown to Vancouver from the nearest

airport, although some mushrooms are exported via Alaska. They are cleaned and processed

by a processing facility or exporter before shipping, and are often in Japan within 48 hours of

harvesting (Menzies, Mattson and Butler, 1999).

The pine mushroom industry in British Columbia generates between 25 and 45 million

dollars annually (Wills and Lipsey, 1999). It has been estimated that the pine mushroom

harvest in the Nass Valley generates between 1.2 and four million dollars of revenue

annualIy (Menzies, et al., 1999). Although not al1 of this money is retained locally, it seems

clear that the industry has economic importance to the residents o f the Nass Valley.

The Nissa'a Final Agreement gives the Nisga'a Nation complete authority to manage al1

forest resources on Nisga'a Lands, including pine mushrooms (Canada, British Columbia and

Nisga'a Nation, 1998). The permit system for harvesters and buyers instituted in 2000 was

developed as part of a wider Pine Mushroom Management Plan that has as its primary goal

the maximization of the value of the resource to the Nisga'a Nation. The primary purposes

of the permit systern in the first year were the collection of data and education of the public

(Nisga'a Lisims Government Lands and Resources, 2000a). Perrnits were availabIe to

Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a harvesters and buyers on a reasonably equal basis: harvesting

permits cost $25.00 per person for anyone, and buying permits cost $250.00 for a Nisga'a

citizen and $350.00 for a non-citizen.

The Nature of the Conflicts The 2000 mushroom season was characterized by conflict. The Forest Resources Department

of NLG, as the perrnitting agency, was challenged by rnembers of the public, both Nisga'a

and non-Nisga'a. Conflicts included:

a) allocation of the resource between Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a harvesters,

b) allocation among various Nisga'a comrnunities,

c) what is the appropnate level of involvement for NLG in the mushroom industry,

d) challenges to NLG's legislative authonty,

e) lack of participation in the permit system by Nisga'a citizens, and,

f) instances of confrontation between Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a harvesters in the forest.

There tvere documented occurrences of threatening behavior, including, in some instances,

threats of violence or use of weapons (Nisga'a Lisims Government Lands and Resources,

2000b).

The Context

Nisga'a Final Agreement and Self-Government

It is important to recognize that these issues exist within a context of change. On May 1 1'

2000, the Nisga'a Nation gained regdatory control of the mushroom harvest as well as

control of the land base. As a result of the adoption of the Nisga'a Final Agreement the

decision-making structure within the Nisga'a Nation has fundamentally changed. What was

once a non-profit society, the Nisga'a Tribal Council, and four separate Bands under the

Indian Act, are now one autonomous government that includes a central Iegislature and four

village councils, the elected members of which are also members o f the Iegislature. This new

governance structure has had a significant effect on decision-making processes, and these

processes continue to evolve.

One fundamental change is the way in which financial resources are distributed. Before the

Final Agreement, each of the four villages received fünding directly from the Department of

lndian Affairs (DIAND) and was entirely responsible for its own financial affairs. Since the

implementation of the Final Agreement, funding is channeled through the central government

of the Nisga'a Nation. Although each viiiage government is a part of that centra1

govemental structure, it can be argued that the Nisga'a Nation has simply stepped into the

role previously played by DIAND. This is a fundamental change and cannot be expected to

be accomplished without some difficulty.

Political Geography

Also important is the change in authority with respect to Nisga'a Lands. Until the effective

date of the Final Agreement the area inside the boundary of Nisga'a Lands, some 1,950

square kilometres, was comprised of three kinds of land tenure:

a) By far the largest area (approximately 1850 square kilometres) was provincial crown

land. Aithough it had been identified throughout the negotiat

Traditional Tenitory, there was no impediment to use of the

the mushroom resource, by the general public.

:ion process as Nisga'a

land, or to the harvesting of

b) Within the same area there were small Indian reserves totaling approximately S square

kilometres that were essentially islands within the large and sparsely settled crown land

area. The communities that lived on these reserves had the ability to reshict access to

these lands, some of which are important mushroom harvesting areas.

c) The third kind of tenure is fee simple parcels that are excluded fiom the Final Agreement.

These parcels remain scattered within Nisga'a Lands, and are not part of Nisga'a Lands.

They are entirely within the control of their fee simple owners and, like any other private

property in the province, Nisga'a legislation does not apply to them. (Figure 2)

+&\\ Former lndian Reserves within FI bga 'a Lands

Fee Simple Lands within N bga 'a Lands

0 Nisga'a Lands

Nisga'a Lisims Governrnent Lands and Figure 2: Land tenure within Nisga'a Lands Rcsourccs Directorate. 200 1 .

With the adoption of the Nisga'a Final Agreement the 1,950 square kilometres of crown land

and Indian reserve came under direct control of the Nisga'a Nation. Provisions of the Final

Agreement, however, require that the Nisga'a Nation not unduly restrict access to its lands

(Canada, et al., 1998. p.79). Although resource extraction is restricted there are only limited

circumstances under which access can be denied to non-Nisga'a.

There are bvo direct consequences of this change that may play a role in the pine mushroom

conflict:

a) Nisga'a Lisims Government is not easily able to deny access to pine mushroom areas to

non-Nisça'a. Although there are mechanisms within the Final Agreement that would

allow desigation of areas of Nisga'a Lands as Nisga'a Private Lands, it requires a

resolution of the Nisga'a legislative body, Wilp Si'AyuukhI Nisga'a, to do so, and the

process is not undertaken lightly. The permit process was a way of regulating the

harvesting of the resource tvithout restricting access to the land base.

b) The former Indian reserves have been extinguished and are now Nisga'a Land like al1

other Nisga'a Land. Members of a particular band no longer have the ability to

unilaterally exclude people fiom former reserves, and are dependant upon the central

govemment to designate former reserves as Nisga'a Private Land or to regulate the

harvesting of the resource.

The fee simple properties within Nisga'a Land remain unchanged. These areas are entirely

outside Nisga'a jurisdiction, and are commonly the sites of mushroorn buying stations or

camps for mushroom harvesters. The Nisga'a have no ability to force compliance with their

permit structure onto occupants of these lands, and can only seek voluntary compliance.

The Economic and Social Environment

Although they live in the middle of the abundance of the Nass Valley, the Nisga'a are not

wealthy people. Since first contact with colonial powers, the Nisga'a, like indigenous people

worldwide, have been systematically impoverished and mxginalized. The relevance of this

poverty with respect to the pine mushroom harvest is simple: In years when the fishing and

logging industries are depressed, mushroom harvesting may be one of the few sources of

cash a h i l y can earn. In other years it is a welcome subsidy to usual income. It is not

reliable, and eamings can fluctuate wildly fiom year to year, but it is important to the local

economy and the cash returns to individual harvesters are thought to average $2,500.00 per

season (Menzies, et al., 1999, p. 9).

I t is difficult to obtain reliable economic or social information about non-Nisga'a harvesters.

With the exception of a few local residents, the non-Nisga'a harvesting community is

transient. The harvest industry operates entirely on a cash basis, and harvesters are unwilling

to disclose earnings for fear of taxation. For this reason alone the non-Nisga7a harvesters

have a strong incentive to resist replation of the pine mushroom industry, and are generally

unwilling to provide any information about themselves or their invoivement in rnushroom

harvesting or buying.

The Cultural Environment

The conflicts associated with the pine rnushroom harvest take place within the context of a

number of cultural fiameworks and relationships. The cultural values of the Nisga'a are

fundamental both to the way the resource is managed and to the way that issues surrounding

the resource are understood and resolved. As well, there is a cross-cultural element that has

an effect on the relationships between Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a. The particular cultural

understandings of the researcher cannot be ignored in the analysis of the situation, nor can

the overall fiamework of existing aboriginal / non-abonginal relations.

It is unrealistic to expect a non-Nisga'a to completely or accurately describe the

characteristics of the Nisga'a culture, nor would it be of any value to the analysis to do so. It

can be safely stated, however, that the Nisga'a culture is stronçly hierarchical and based on

an ethic of respect for wisdom. Thoughtfulness is valued highly, as is accuracy.

The Parties and their Interests An understanding of the parties to these disputes comes fiom a number of sources.

Interviews were held with eleven people involved in the harvest, including harvester, buyers,

and managers of the forest resource. An internet bulletin board for harvesters was reviewed

monthly during the harvesting season (htt~://user.cavenet.com/akrnoore), and public

cornrnents in the Pine Mushroom Completion Report (Nisga'a Lisims Government Lands

and Resources, 2000b) and from the minutes of public meetings were reviewed. The

following parties were identified:

a) Nisga'a harvesters,

b) Non-Nisga'a harvesters,

c ) Nisga'a buyers,

d) Non-Nisga7 a buyers,

e) NLG elected officials, and,

f) NLG Department of Forest Resources staff.

Nisga'a Harvesters

The mushroom harvest is an important part of the circle o f the seasons for many Nisga'a. It is

an activity that al1 c m participate in, and that can be engaged at any level, from recreational

to professional. It also c m be inextricably entwined with a family's responsibly to stewtrd its

traditional temtory, and continue its ever-important comection to the land. Most importantly,

there are extremely limited opportunities in the Nass Valley to acquire cash. The pine

mushroom harvest has the potential of allowing many people to earn the cash that allows

them to pass the winter in relative ease, without the need for investments in expensive

equipment or travel over long distances. A backpack and a good pair of shoes are al1 that is

required.

For many Nisga'a harvesters the issue of control of the resource is extremely important. The

frequently expressed sentiment by Nisga'a harvesters was that they have shared this resource

for long enough, and should now be able to restrict it to Nisga'a.

Non-Nisga'a Harvesters

Non-Nisga'a harvesters are the rnost difficult group to access. They are primarily transient

and often have no established ties to the Nisga'a or the Nass Valley. In generaI it can be

provisionally stated that the non-Nisga'a harvesters' primary concern is maintaining access

to the resource. They recognize that the Nisga'a have jurisdiction and are wiIIing to do what

is necessary, within reason, to maintain access to the resource. They do not generaIIy hvour

regdation of the resource. It is unlikely that taxes are paid on their earnings.

It should also be noted that non-Nisga'a harvesters have other options. There are mushrooms

in many parts of the province, and it is possible to harvest away fiom Nisga'a Lands without

a need for any kind of a permit. This wouId change if the province developed a permit system

for the extraction of botanical forest products.

Mushroom harvesting tends to attract transients. Large harvesting camps c m house hundreds

of people in tents, tarpaulin and plywood shacks, pick-up trucks, buses and carnpers. These

camps have no power, no ruming water, and primitive sanitation facilities. The harvesters

are ". . .people Iooking to live a just a little outside of the rules of regular society, people

attracted to the Iifestyles only fiontier living c m offer" (de Leeuw, 1999, p.4).

Nisga'a Buyers

There were at Ieast three Nisga'a buyers operating in the Nass Valley during the 3000 pine

mushroom season. None of them purchased buyer's pemits or co-operated in any way with

Nisga'a Lisims Govemment's permit system. One of the buyers who was willing to be

interviewed made it clear that the Nisga'a buyers did not recognize the authonty of the

Manager of Forest Resources. On further questioning, it became clear that some, if not all, of

the Nisga'a buyers had been told by a Nisga'a elected official that they did not need to

comply with the permit system and that no penalties would be forthcoming if they did not

comply. It is impossible to know if they would have complied in the absence of that

information.

Buyers, in that they operate from central depots within or near Nisga'a communities, do not

have the same interests as harvesters. They do not generaIly get out in the forest. For the

buyers the mushroom harvest appears to be much more clearly an economic interest.

Non-Nisga'a Buyers

There are two kinds of non-Nisga'a buyers: those who live in the local area and buy

mushrooms during the season as part of their livelihood, and those who corne fiom elsewhere

and set up in the area for the mushroom season only. None of the latter was available to be

interviewed. The former, however, have an interesting perspective as they are part of the

local community, their children attend the local school and they share services such as the

landfill and health facitities with Nisga'a communities in the valley.

Generally these buyers are reasonably cooperative. They understand that the Nisga7a own

the resource, and understand that if they wish to profit from it they need to work with NLG in

a cooperative mariner. They also know, however, that the Nisga'a have no authonty over fee

simple lands within Nisga'a Lands, so they can buy mushrooms without regard to Nisga'a

replations if they choose. Ultimately their participation in a Nisga'a permitting system is

voluntary, but the issue is bigger than just mushrooms. They are neighbours as well as

business participants.

Nisga'a Lisims Government

The history of the Nisga'a Nation's long road back to self-government spans over one

hundred years of persistent and determined effort, including petitioning the Privy Council in

London, numerous legal actions, and generations o f political action and negotiation. Now

that this acliievement has been realized, the Nisga'a wish to exercise their jurisdiction over

their resources. This jurisdiction, however, is currently being exercised under a spotlight.

Litigation continues, and every order of the new govemrnent is subject to scrutiny.

There are a number of self-government objectives of the Nisga'a Nation, including:

a) transparent and accountable government,

b) fairness,

c) respect for traditional decision-making processes, and,

d) increased economic oppominity for Nisga'a citizens.

These are the objectives of the Nisga'a Nation for al1 of its activities, including the

mushroorn harvest. In addition, NLG strives, in al1 its dealings, to be fair and reasonable to

its neighbours, and to be seen to be reasonable. This is likely to have had an effect on the

permitting system for mushrooms.

The Nisga'a Nation held its first election in Novcrnber of 2000, electing new Village

Councils, Urban Local representatives, Council o f Elders representatives, and Executive

Officers. It is impossible to know if the fact that an election campaign was undenvay during

the harvest season had any effect on the introduction of the permit system. It is reasonable to

expect that this campaign, like al1 political carnpaigns evelywhere, presented opportunities

for individuals to challenge candidates on current issues, of which the mushroom permit

system certainly was one.

Nisga'a Lisims Government Department of Forest Resources

The Forest Resources Department of Nisga'a Lisims Governrnent is responsible for

developing policy recomrnendations with respect to the pine mushroom harvest, and for

implementing direction developed by Nisga7a Lisims Govemment. In early 2000 a

management plan was established for the pine mushroom harvest. This plan was developed

on the basis of recommendations fi-om the Lands and Resources Cornmittee of NLG. The

2000 permit system was developed as one aspect of the Pine Mushroom Management Plan

(Nisga'a Lisims Government Lands and Resources 2000a).

The issues facing the Forest Resources Department with respect to the mushroom harvest are

essentially the same ones that face the Province of British Columbia:

safety in the forest,

enforcement of conservation regulations,

fire protection,

conflicts with forestry and silviculture activities,

general management costs of the resource extraction process,

unregulated camping on Nisga'a Lands,

protection of mushroom habitat,

definition of the boundary of Nissa'a Lands,

access, and,

private parcels within Nisga'a Lands (Nisga'a Lisirns Governrnent Lands and Resources,

2000a, pp. 2-4).

Summary At first glance, and especially fiorn an external perspective, it would be easy to assume that

the mushroom harvest conflict on Nisga'a lands is simply another issue behveen Native and

non-Native interests. It is the threatening behavior in the forest that received attention, and

this behavior could be construed as being the conflict that requires attention.

It appears, however, that the conflict may not entirely oriçinate in the relationship betsveen

these two parties. Understanding and assisting in the resolution of the conflict requires that

the views of a variety of interests be considered: not only Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a

harvesters, but also mushroom buyers, NLG staff and elected officials and potentially a range

of other stakeholders have views and interests that influence the situation.

It is hoped that in analyzing and designing an intervention for this conflict it will be possible

to make a practical contribution towards the resolution of the issues associated with the pine

mushroom harvest. Although implementation of the intervention lies beyond the scope of this

project, the ultimate objective is to develop recommendations for Nisga'a Lisims

Government that will be helpful in the management of the pine mushroom resource on

Nisga'a Lands.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Culture and Conflict

Avnich and Black state that "(b)ecause culture does not 'cause' behavior - neither

aggression, not the business cycle nor the grand flow of history- cultural analysis is not

causal analysis" ( 1 993, p. 1 3 5).

Although culture is not causative, no conflict exists except in a particular, unique cultural

context that shapes it. Every culture has ways in which conflict is understood. The definition

of what conflict is, and what constitutes resolution of a conflict, is defined by that collection

of knowledge, belief and behavior that is part of each person's awareness (Avnich, Black and

Scimecca, 199 1 ; Lederach, 1995; Lewicki, et al., 1994; Ting-Toorney, 1999).

Much of the literature pertaining to culture and conflict has been developed to address cross-

cultural issues that hinder communication and understanding. One way of understanding and

cod8ying differences between cultures has been through the concepts of high

context/individualist and low context~collectivist (Hall, 1994; Jandt and Pedersen, 1996;

LeBaron, 1997; Porter and Samovar, 1994; Ting-Toomey, 1994; 1999).

Stella Ting-Toomey (1 994) in particular has articulated the differences between high and low

context cultures, including the importance of different conceptions of time and how cultural

values define the way in which conflict resolution is approached. She suggests that

individualistic conflict negotiators pay attention to objective and substantive issues, while

collectivistic conflict negotiators pay more attention to relational issues. This is consistent

with the views of Jandt and Pedersen about the role of culture in defining positive and

negative outcornes of conflict resolution (1 996,).

The concepts of high context and low context cultures, while necessarily a generalization, are

useful in illuminating the dificulties o f cross-cultural communication, particularly in a

conflict situation. These concepts do not, however, lend themselves to a predictive role. Jandt

and Pedenen, in their atternpt to develop a mode1 to assist cross-cultural understanding, are

forced to admit that the mode1 is 'fiozen in timr" and does not give an understanding of

behavior in more than one discrete context ( 1 996, p. 18). To repeat Avnich and Black

(1993): culture does not cause behavior.

The notion of high and low context communications has value within a particular culture as

weH as between cultures. Edward T. Hall, in one of his more recent works, uses the analogy

of the bureaucrat, stating that: "One reason that most bureaucrats are so dificult to deal with

is that they wnte for each other and are insensitive to the contexting needs of others7'(1994, p.

62) . Each of us has had this sarne expenence in one form or another: the words are

intelligible, but the context is rnissing. Often this intemal cultural lack of shared meaning is

attributed to economic class or race (Gadlin, 1994; Lederach, 1995; Rubenstein, 1 993).

Lund, et al. state unequivocally that "the context of conflict resolution includes, in every

case, a cultural context"(1994, p. 24). This means that whether a conflict is between a parent

and child, two members of the same community, or warring states, it exists within a

particular and meaningful context that shapes the roles of the parties, the nature of the

solutions, and the definition of the conflict.

Given the impossibility of entering the subjective reaIity of another being, let alone another

culture, human beings rely on communication to assist their interactions, including their

conflicted interactions. It is not surprising, then, that much of the literature related to cross-

cultural conflict uses a translation metaphor as an organizing principle.

Cohen, in his consideration of negotiation across cultures, States, "Unhindered

communications rests on the sender and receiver possessing matching assumptions" ( 1 99 1, p.

30). This sounds like a simple proposition. It is unlikely that matching assumptions are

present in a cross-cultural communication as is illustrated in Porter and Samovar's

description of translation issues in communications between high context and low context

cultures:

First, verbal messages are extremely important in low context cultures. It is in the

verbal message that the information to be shared is coded; it is not readily

available from the environment because people in low context cultures tend not to

l e m how to perceive information froin the environment. Second, low-context

people who rely primarily on verbal messages for information are perceived as

less attractive and less credible by people in high-context cultures. Third, people

in high-context cultures are more adept at reading non-verbal behavior and

reading the environment. Fourth, people in high-context cultures have an

expectation that others are also able to understand the unarticulated

communication; hence they do no speak as much as people fiorn low-context

culture (1 994, p. 24).

A m c h and Black (1 994) take a more pragmatic approach to communication problems. They

state that although there are inherent dangers in translation between cultures it is as much a

fact of human experience as is translation between Ianguages and between subjective

realities. Translation between cultures, then, is not a problern to be overcome so much as it is

a reality of human existence - contextual, rather than causative.

Another common theme in much of the literature about conflict and culture is the power of

story telling. Particularly in cross-cultural situations, stories may be a way of describing

complex relationships in an holistic way. As well, myths, proverbs and foIk sayings, although

they may be contradictory, often iIlustrate diRering world viavs and decision-making

strategies that support a particular cuItural setting (Lederach, 1995; McWhinney, 1992).

Huber, in her 1993 discussion of mediation in a First Nations context, relies heavily upon the

value of telling the story as part of fomulating issues and solutions. In this context the story

is related to the heart on the medicine wheel and must be given voice before collaborative

work can begin in the direction of resolution. This is congruent with the notion that where

First Nations communities such as the Nisga'a are stable over time, oral story-telling c m be

an effective means of problem solving, aliowing solutions to cornrnon problems to be refined

over tirne (Corsiglia and Snivley, 1997).

Kruger's work on the design of an assessrnent process for intercultural disputes recognized

that 'the deepest, least accessible layer of culture rnay be the shared history and stones of its

people" (1994, p. 602). Unfortunately, there is no room in his mode1 for the study of these

stories, as he believes the long-term and intensive work that would be required to understand

a group's shared history rnakes it an untenable goal.

Culture and the Resolution of Conflict Conflict resolution methods vary widely, and range along a spectrurn that can be defined as

prescriptive, expert-driven at one end, and elicitive, participant-driven at the other.

Lieberman, writing from a social psychology perspective, defines different cognitive styles

that are associated with culture, and States that 'each culture teaches, trains, and molds those

within its system to exhibii what is considered the most appropriate range of problem solving

methods (1994, p. 178). It would follow, then, that different methods of conflict resolution

wouId be appropriate in different cultures.

In North America the standard altemate dispute resolution or conflict resolution process is

directly tied to the dominant culture. Models of organizational conflict resolution are ofien

prescriptive and make assumptions about the best way to manage conflict. The process is

explanatory in a way that is consistent with a low context culture. It relies heavily on expert

advice and is skills based. It is prescriptive in nature, with a tendency to favour processes that

can be learned and then applied to a range of confiict situations (Fisher, Ury and Patton,

199 I ; LeBaron, 1992, 1994; Ury, 1993).

In the North Amencan context it is often assumed that effective and durable solutions must

be created fiom within, created by the people affected by them, and be directed towards the

development of an interest-based, horizontal power structure (Costantino and Merchant,

1996; Rothman, 1997; Senge, 1994). It is difficult to knotv if this is the best way to manage

conflict in a First Nations context. Lebaron States that :

lndividuaIs fiom collectivist cultures tend to expect vertical hierarchies and

function well within them. Marty dominant culture Americans carry

individualist assumptions, including the primacy of horizontal relationships;

that is, they expect equality and acknowledgement, while collectivists may be

more cornfortable with tvider and more pronounced power differentials ( 1997,

p.32).

One of the reasons that tiiere is so little organizational conflict theory that seems a good "fit"

with the Nisga'a situation may be the assumption in most of the North Amencan literature

that there is a strong relationship between f o m and function. It seems self-evident fiom the

North American perspective that an organization will develop in response to its own needs

and for better or worse, tvill develop a forrn that reflects its function (Brown, 1993). A case

has been made that this is not necessarily the situation in First Nation communities. The

governance system imposed on First Nation communities by DIAND was developed not in

response to the governance needs of First Nations communities, but rather the administrative

needs of DIAND (Boldt, 1993). There can be, and often is, a significant and intentional

mismatch between the form of govemment and the social function it is intended to express

(Bagordo, 2000; Boldt, 1993; Chapman, McCaskill and Newhouse, 199 1).

There is, however, value in the organizational development literature for the consideration

and understanding First Nations govemance and corporate structures. To the extent that this

body of literature develops models and methods for bringing form into Iine with fünction it

can be instructive in assisting with the intemal realignrnent necessitated by the Nisga'a Final

Agreement. Argyris and Schon ( 1978, 1996), for exarnple, present an explanation of double-

loop leaming. This explanation, dong with Bartunek and Reid's (1 992) closely related

consideration of second order change, is a usefui constnict for this purpose. These theorists,

and others who look to the intemal knowledge and understanding of the organization itself,

(Avnich and Black, 199 1, 1993; Costantino and Merchant, 1996; Lederach, 1995; Senge,

1994) can assist NLG and other First Nations Governments to align the forrn of their

govemance structures with the functions they wish thern to fulfill, and do so in ways that are

relevant to their own experiences.

A Nisga'a dispute resolution system would need to be designed with care to assure that the

decision-making structures, time fnmes and meeting processes were consistent with the

needs and expectations of the Nisga'a. Lederach's work on the development of an elicitive

approach to conflict resolution is useful in this regard. He defines the difference in

prescriptive and elicitive models as follows:

In the prescriptive model, training conducted on the basis of transfer, of

passing on to the participants the approach, strategy, and technique mastered

by the trainer. The event itself is built around providing, teaching, and

learning a specific model of conflict resolution. The elicitive approach, on the

other hand, undertakes training as an opportunity and an encounter for

participants in a given setting to discover and create models of conflict

resolution in the context of their setting (1 995, p.64).

This elicitive mode1 recognizes the parties to the conflict as the key and is directed towards

empowerment rather than expert knowledge. The conflict resolution practitioner in this

instance has a different role. Rather than disseminating information, the focus of the "expert"

is on facilitating the participants to use their own existing kriowledge.

Avruch and Black's discussion of "the Culture QuestionW(l99 1) agrees with Lederach in the

sense that they postdate that there is not a universal understanding of conflict, but that

conflict and conflict resolution processes are idiosyncratic, requiring situationally derived

responses. Their articulation of ethnoconflict theory, being the way in which people

understand conflict, and ethnopraxis, being their indigenous techniques for managing

conflict, recognizes the necessity of conflict resolution processes that are culturally

appropriate.

Lederach (1 995) also considers the issue of cross-cultural conflict resolution and develops

guiding principles for conflict resolution in multicultural settings. These guidelines are

founded on the assumption that each party already has strategies that are in place, and the

conflict resolution process is one of awareness, empowerment, and sharing. Broome (1 993)

cornes to essentially the sarne conclusion, although he is more prescriptive in his approach,

developing guidelines for participants to assist them to develop a shared meaning. Similarly,

Barna ( 1994) takes a prescriptive approach to the development of shared understanding,

listing "stumbling blocks" to intercultural communication.

The fact that culture is contextual rather than causal means that it cannot be easily isolated or

studied as a discrete entity. Aspects of culture are inextricably woven into the fabric of every

conflict. There is a paradox: Our own cuIture is so ingrained that it is difficult for us to see it

objectively, and other cultures, although visible, are difficult to comprehend because they lie

outside Our experience (Fry and Fry, 1997). Culture, according ta Avruch and Black 'is not in

fact a unitary or Boolean variabIe that a person 'has' or 'hasn't"' (1993, p. 142.). It is that

complex collection of knowledge, belief and behavior that is part of each person's awareness,

and that serves as a filter for Our understanding. We are al1 members of more than one

culture, and those cultures overlap in complex ways.

James Tully, writing in the context of aboriginal rights and self-government in Canada,

discusses the realities of communicating effectively across cultures:

(Intercultural dialogue) seems like an impossible task only because of another

false assumption of the imperial age: that cultures are independent, closed and

internally homogeneous. As we have learned over the last sixty years, cultures

are interdependent, overlapping, and internally complex. Cultures exist in

dynamic processes of interaction, negotiation, interna1 chaIlenge, and

reinterpretation and transformation. As a result, humans are always members

to varying degrees of more than one culture. They experience

misunderstandings and differences within their first cultures - such as

between genders, generations, and classes - that are not completely different

in kind fkom misunderstandings and differences across cultures. Cultural

understanding and identity is thus enormously more cornplex, open-textured,

interactive and dynamic that the old vision of closed and homogeneous

cultures presupposed (2000, p. 54).

Culture and Multi-Party Disputes In the North Arnerican context there is a move towards ernploying consensus-based

processes to resolve multiparty disputes. Over the last twenty years a significant body of

experience has been developed in this area (Corrnick, 1989; Dukes, 1996; Susskind and

Cruikshank, 1987; Susskind, , McKearnan and Thomas-Larrner, 1999; Wondolleck, 1988;

Wondelleck and Crowfoot, 1990). In Canada this interest has been extended beyond the

resolution of specific conflicts to the developrnent of on-going forums for rnanaging

resources generally (B.C. Roundtable of the Environment and the Economy, Commission on

Resources and Environment, Fraser Basin Management Progarn and National Round Table,

1993; Connick, et al. 1996).

There are differing views about what makes a dispute or conflict amenable to solution

through a consensus-based process. Susskind and Cruikshank (1 987) propose that consensus-

Sased processes are appropriate for distributional disputes, but not for disputes centred

around rights. This is similar to Cormick's criteria for a negotiated settlement, which include

parties that are willing and able to compromise and the ability to be flexible in the

consideration of solutions. More recently, Forester ( 1999) has considered the possibility of

value irreconcibility in a dispute resolution process, stating that the perception of such an

irreconcilablity should not necessady preclude an attempt to reach consensus, but rather

should be acknowledged as a possible outcome of such a process.

Cormick, Dale, Eamond, Sigurdson and Stuart (1996) take a wider view of the applicability

of consensus-based processes. They define appropriateness not by the elements of the dispute

in process, but rather by the nature of the parties to the dispute. Their view is that the

wilhgness of the parties defines the appropriateness of the consensus based-process.

There are also mixed views as to the advisability of using consensus-based processes for

issues that ultimately will be decided leçislatively. There is qualified agreement that

consensus-based processes can be used where the decision will ultimately be made

legislatively. GeneraiIy, however, the support for using a consensus-based process in this

circumstance is qualified by a preference for a cornmitment by the decision-making body to

support the decision reached by the group (B.C. Roundtable, 1993; Cormick, et al. 1996;

Carlson, 1999). There are dissenters from this view. Tidwell, particularly, sounds a note of

caution with his oppression story: in this story he portrays mediated processes as "tools for

control and domination" that can be 'bsed to obscure or deny procedural fairness" (1998, pp.

157- 158). His concern is echoed in the literature in various ways: distrust of goverment

motives, (Carlson, 1999) govemment's fear of diminishing its own role in the decision-

making process (Matakala, 1995) and junsdictional overlaps and confusions (Carpenter and

Kennedy, 1988) al1 are indications of the complexities of involving governments directly in

consensus seeking processes.

The majority of the written works that examine consensus-based decision-making processes

are highly prescriptive in nature, and include specific and detailed instructions as to how to

design and undertake such a processes. (Cormick, et al., 1 996; Carpenter a ~ ~ d Kennedy, 1 98 8;

Susskind, et al., 1999). In many cases these prescriptions are culturafly specific, and may

have Iimited application in the Nisga'a context. The assumption that power differentials c m

be Zeft outside of the process, for example (Corrnick, et al, 1996) may simply not be possible

in Nisga'a cultural context.

Returning to some of the literature addressing issues of culture directly is instructive.

Lederach's 1995 cal1 for an elicitive approach to conflict resolution generally is equally

applicable to the issue of consensus based processes specifically. His use of the knowledge

and processes already in existence as a base for participant-denved resolutions to conflicts

may provide a key to designing a consensus process that is culturally appropriate to the

Nisga'a context. Similarly, Avruch & Black's concepts of ethnoconflict theory and

ethnopraxis (1993) may provide an organizing principle that c m help participants in a

Nisga'a / Non-Nisga'a consensus-seeking process to ensure that the processes and structures

that they develop support, rather than hinder, their efforts.

ASSESSMlENT OF THE CONFLICT

Methodology There is no one right way to assess a conflict. The method can be highly structured such as

that proposed by Susskind, et al. (1999) or flexible, experiential and internally generated in a

manner similar to that proposed by Lederach (1 995). Every conflict exists in its own specific

context, with its own resources and constraints as identified by the parties involved. For this

reason, and especially in a cross-cultural or multi-cultural situation, any assessment must be

recognized as preliminary, and understood to be a starting point for further investigation.

While the processes for assessing a conflict may vary, the objectives do not. Susskind and

Thomas-Larmer postulate four questions that need to be answered for any conflict. These

questions are "who are the stakeholders", "what are the issues", should the process proceed"

and "under what circun~stances?" ( 1999, p. 100). Others propose diffèrent questions to the

sarne end. Lederach speaks of "gathering perspectives", "locating the conflict" and

"arranging and negotiating" the process (1995, p.98). Wehr (1 999) proposes mapping the

eIements of a conflict, including the history, context, parties, issues, dynamics, alternative

routes to a solution and conflict reçulation potential.

Despite the differences in their approaches, and therefore the questions asked, the objectives

of a conflict assessment do not vary greatly. Susskind and Thomas-Larmer assert that:

Although most dispute resolution practitioners agree that some sort of

assessment should be conducted at the outset of a convening effort, they differ

on exactly what needs to be done and what to cal1 the process. Although it's

tme that some approaches may be more appropriate than others in certain

situations, the overall objective is always the sarne: to identifi stakeholders

and key issues, analyze the feasibility of moving fonvard, and design a work

plan for proceeding ( 1 999, pp. 102- 103).

The way in which this information is obtained is necessarily situational. Each situation places

its own unique constraints on the process of gathenng information, and presents its own

unique opportunities.

Information for the assessment of the conflict over the pine mushroom resource in the Nass

Valley has been obtained throuçh confidential interviews with knowledgeable individuals,

review of minutes of public meetings, analysis of anecdotal information collected by Nisga'a

Lisims Government, review of postings to a public website for mushroom harvesters, and

study of relevant legislation and policy.

Each of these sources has its limitations. The policy documents and legislation, for example,

although they give a clear illustration o f the current situation, do not always give an

explanation as to why the policies or legislation were developed, or more specifically, what

conflict or problem they were intended to resolve. Otten it was the interviews that provided

the historical or political context of the current regulations. Similarly, the interviews

themselves, given that they are based on an individual perception of a situation, could not

necessarily illuminate the full range of reasons that particular policies had been developed. In

general, the intention was to look to as wide an information base as possible, both in terms of

content and sources.

Review of Previous Interventions Information gathered by the Forest Resources Department before the beginning of the project

provided important background data for the research project. The 2000 pine mushroom

season can be viewed as a series of interventions towards meeting the objectives of NLG

with respect to the pine mushroom harvest, begiming with the development of the

Management Plan, and progressing through the permit system to the post-season evaluation

of that system. fn general, these interventions were aimed at collecting information for

decision-makers and development of policy recommendations. Although comments were

solicited throughout the fa11 2000 mushroom harvesting season, there was no opportunity for

participants in the process to have a direct effect on the development of Management Plan or

the permit system, both of which had been developed by NLG the previous summer.

Perrnits

The first year of the mushroom perrnit system was considered by the Manager ofForest

Resources as a success, even though compliance was low (Nisga'a Lisims Govemment

Lands and Resources, 2000b). The public education component, especially with respect to

the location of Nisga'a Lands boundaries, was successful, and education about harvesting

techniques, although minimal in this first season, began. The objective of collecting data

from permit holders was somewhat successtùl; little hard data from buyers was collected

under the voluntary program. (Nisga'a Lisims Govemment Lands and Resources 2000b).

Public Comment

Public views about the permit system were gauged through meetings during the 2000

harvesting season. Comment forms were made available at the NLG office and at locations

where permits were sold. The Forest Resources Manager routinely visited buying stations

and harvesters' camps to speak to participants and recording their concerns. Approximately

30 people commented and a summary of their cornments shows a range of concems

including jurisdiction, safety, and permit fees (Nisga'a Lisims Government Lands and

Resources, 2000b). There is no strong theme or agreement among the comments.

I t was possible to get a sense of some of concems of non-Nisga'a harvesters by reviewing

archival postings on the local mushroom website, but it was not possible to solicit their input

through the bulletin board because it only operates seasonally. The few resident non-Nisga'a

harvesters have had input through public meetings and comment sheets provided by the

Forest Resources Department of NLG, but these comments are not classified as to whether or

not the comment came from a Nisga'a individual.

Meetings

Meetings were held in the village of New Aiyansh dunng the 2000 harvesting season to

collect participants' views. These meetings were not well attended, although those who did

attend provided detailed information that was helpful for re-evaluating the permit process. As

a direct result of these meetings a mid-season amendment was made to the map that

identified mushroom picking areas. A meeting scheduled in the village of Gitwinksihlkw was

cancelled by that village.

New management issues identified as a result of the meetings were:

a) the role of the government,

b) commercial viability of the harvest, and,

c ) conflicts with the timber resource (Nisga' a Lisims Government Lands and Resources,

1999b).

The Assessor

Consideration of the role of the assessor in the conflict and in the community is an important

aspect of the development of the methodology. Opinions Vary as to who is the ideal conflict

assessor. Susskind, et al. ( 1999) suggest that a neutral party invited by one of the

stakeholders is appropriate and include impartiality, knowledge, experience, interview skills,

good connections with stakeholders and a mandate fiom the convenor as important attributes

of anyone assessing a conflict. Strauss (1999) is less concerned with the identity of the

assessor than he is with the fact that he or she must act only in the role of a neutral process

consultant, and believes that the real work of assessment is to be done by stakeholders.

Tidwell ( 1 998) questions the validity of the concept o f a neutral investigator entirely.

In pragmatic terms, the initiai assessment of a conflict will be undertaken by whoever is able

to do so. This person could be hired by one of the parties, or al1 of the parties jointly.

Alternately, the role could be fulfilled by a cornmittee of some or al1 of the parties, or by an

altruistic volunteer. The most important element is to know who the researcheriassessor is, to

understand his or her role in the conflict, and to realistically assess the impact of his or her

involvement on both the assessrnent and the eventual resolution process.

The assessor with respect to this conflict is a late-40's non-Nisga'a woman who has Iived and

worked in a Nisga'a community for one and one-half years. A senior civil servant employed

by Nisga'a Lisims Government, her position gives her no regdatory authority over the pine

mushroom harvest, but does, in al1 likelihood, give the ability to influence decisions

infomally. She has no stake in any particular outcome, although she would like to see the

conflict resolved.

Depending upon one's viewpoint, these qualities could be constmed as advantaçes or

disadvantages with respect to the conflict resolution process. Certainly, there are issues of

cultural understanding that come to rnind, although age. education, gender and professional

status will al1 also have an effect upon the researcher's view of the issues. This is

unavoidable, no matter who assesses the confIict. Fry and Fry state that :

An implication of conflict beinç a cultural phenomenon is that the culturally

typical ways of perceiving and responding to conflict remain in some ways

invisible to members of any given society as unquestioned assumptions within

their social universe. Furthemore, options for dealing with conflict which lie

outside a person's cultural repertoire tend to remain unconsidered. Exploring

cross-cultural diversity in how conflicts are handled opens up new

possibilities (1 997, p. 10).

This suggests that any assessor will be harnpered by his or her own worldview.

The logical extension of this thought, however, is that despite the fact that it is difficult to see

beyond one's own cultural experience, a cross-cultural perspective c m be a fniitfül means of

extending understanding of a conflict, and that sensitivity to one's own limitations is an

important quality for the assessor of any conflict, in any situation. Ultimately, the

appropriateness of the assessor's on-going involvement in the conflict is a matter for the

parties to the conflict to decide.

The Interviews

Interviews were heId in the spring of 2001 with members of the harvesting community, the

mushroom buying community, the Lands and Resources Committee, forestry staffmembers

and elected officiais of Nisga'a Lisims Government.

The interview questions were:

1. Whât is your experience in the pine mushroom industry?

2. What are sorne of the problems you have had?

3. How (if at all) has your experience changed since the treaty and Nisga'a

Legislation came into effect?

4. Who else should 1 speak to about the pine mushroom industry?

The interview questions were kept as general and open-ended as possible for a number of

reasons. First was the recognition that the interviews are, for many stakeholders, the first

opportunity to discuss this issue in any detail. They are, using Slringer's description of the

action research process as a look-think-act model, the first "look", both for the researcher and

the participants (1 999). The intent was to keep the questions general enough to allow the

interviewee to explain his or her own view of the issues at whatever level of complexity was

appropriate and comfortable. Secondly, it was hoped that open-ended questions would be

helpful to the interviewees as they aîtempted to define the issues for themseIves. Questions

shouId not only be designed to inform the interviewer, but also should be usefd for the

interviewee. Cormick, et al. (1996) concentrate not on the questions that the interviewer

needs to ask, but on the questions that the stakeholder needs to ask. The questions need to be

open-ended and general, and give opportunity for constructive thought to both parties.

Costantino and Merchant (1 996) assert that the way in which a design effort is stated is

crucial to its outcome. This would suggest that a thoughtful and empowering process is more

likely to result when stakeholders are able to clearly and easily express their views in ways

that are Iogical and sequential to them, rather than to the questioner.

Originally sixteen people had agreed to be interviewed, including representatives from al1

stakeholder groups. Of the sixteen original interviewees, only eleven ultimately made

themselves available for an interview. hterestingly, the five people that ultimately decided

against an interview were Nisga'a harvesters.

Nisga'a interviewees were careful to take the time to clearly and completely express their

concerns, which was extremely helpful, but they ofien asked if their views were the correct

ones. There was noticeable worry about not knowing the right answers. This may have been

party responsible for the lack of response by Nisga'a harvesters. In casual conversation a

number of the harvesters that chose not to be interviewed stated that they thought that their

chiefs and elders should decide what the correct answers were.

Each of the eleven interviews ranged from one half hour to tsvo hours in length and al1 were

extremely informative. They were held both in person and over the telephone, as requesied

by the interviewees. Interview scripts are attached as Appendix A. Due to the small size of

the local cornmunity that has an interest in the mushroom harvest, concerns were summarized

without identifying the number of respondents in each category. It would be possible in some

cases to identiQ respondents by knowing the number of respondents in a certain group. The

small data set for the interviews was augrnented by other sources of information, specitïcally

public comment sheets and recorded minutes from public meetings and postings on a public

mushroom industry website.

At this initial stage of investigation the purpose was to be inclusive: to gather al1 of the issues

and concems without reference to the ultimate importance of any one of them. For this

reason, there is no ranking of concerns or indication of how ofien any particular concem was

raised.

Results of Assessrnent

The Issues and Stakehalders

Issues identified by stakeholders were initially generalized into four categories: economic,

social, jurisdictional, and environmental. The categories were developed arbitrarily from the

responses received. The issues identified by stakeholders are complex and intenvoven.

There was a significant body of information about the Nisga'a Nation's 2000 permit system

that cut across al1 of the categories. This information was considered to be of a different

nature than the rest in that it was related to the Nisga'a Nation's prelirninary response to its

understanding of al1 of the other issues. For this reason, concerns about the permit systern

were aggregated into a separate, fi fth category.

In the interview process respondents often offered solutions to problems, rather than simply

identifying the problem to be considered. There arc a number o f possible reasons for the

fiequency of this kind of a response. First, the open-ended nature of the interviews was

designed to allow people to express their issues in their ûwn way. Not everyone has

consciously tried to understand the interests underlying the problems they perceive.

Secondly, in many cases respondents had given a great deal o f thought to a particular issue,

and had developed what was the best possible solution in their view. These solutions were

offered in a genuine attempt to assist in the process, and were gratefully received. Where

possible, an attempt was made to reach the interest or interests that lay behind solutions that

were proposed.

A summary of issues and solutions identified by al1 sources and organized by category is

attzched as Appendix B. A summary of issues and solutions identified by stakeholder group

is attached as Appendix C.

Issues were further analyzed within each category to look for areas of agreement about topics

for consideration. There was considerable agreement arnong stakeholder groups about what

the issues were, although the solutions posed differed considerably, as is to be expected.

Category 1 - Environmental Issues

Agrsement arnong stakeholder groups was most consistent in the area of environrnental

concern. Perhaps because the effects of poor environmental management such as garbage,

human waste, and mushroom habitat destruction are clearly visibIe, they tended to be the

easiest issues to identiQ. Although there were no significant areas of disagreement with

respect to environmental issues, there were areas where more information would be helpful

to stakeholders, particularly about the relationship behveen forestry and mushroom

harvesting. Education of harvesters was viewed as helpfùl to make sure that people know

how to harvest the resource without damaging habitat. To the extent that there was

disagreement about environrnental issues i: was primarily related to jurisdiction: who had

made the mess and who should clean it up.

The issue of access was raised a nurnber of tirnes as a potential solution to environmental

concems. Nisga'a harvesters tended to think that restricting access to Nisga'a only would

resolve some of the problems associated with rakinç of the forest floor, dumping garbage,

and developing environmentally unsafe campsites. Non-Nisga'a harvesters tended more often

to associate access with the need for environmental education: they saw the issue not as one

of differentiating between Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a, but between those who were

experienced, responsible harvesters, and those who were not.

Category 2 - Economic Issues

AI1 +he stakeholder groups recognized that issues of economic distribution were central to the

management of the pine mushroom harvest.

The issue of who should have access to the resource in the first place was of prïmary

importance. Opinions ranged fiom open access for al1 to Nisga'a access for one particular

Nisga'a tnbe only, with a variety of options between. There was no strong alignment of

stakeholder groups with respect to this issue although the Non-Nisga'a hmesters were

generally supportive of an open-access po1icy.

The business structure of the industry and how it did or did not support the needs of any

particular stakeholder group was a common concern. In this case there were visible

differences of opinion between stakeholder groupç, particularly between the Nisga'a buyers

and non-Nisga'a buyers. Nisga'a buyers generally sought greater local regulation of the

industry, both geographically by rnoving the buying stations on to Nisga'a Lands, and

legislatively by direct involvement of NLG in the development and regulation of the

industry. Non-Nisga'a buyers were more comfortable with the status quo, and although they

were usually willing to comply with NLG regulation they supporteda business mode1 with as

little regulation as possible.

The issue of taxation of the resource was raised by both Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a, but in very

different ways. The mushroorn industry operates entirely on a cash basis. Nowhere else in the

province is there any regulation or monitoring of the industry. The unregulated nature of the

industry creates what has been called a "wild wild west" attitude ainong harvesters and

buyers (Leeson, as cited by Todd, 2000)- Non-Nisga'a harvesters are not willing to reveal

income, presurnably to avoid taxation. For the Nisga'a harvester, who currently pays no

income tax on income earned on Nisga'a Lands, the payment of any kind of permit fee is

viewed as a tax. Concerns about taxation, however, lead inevitably to the issue of who funds

the on-going costs associated with the pine mushroom industry, and therefore back to the

questions of jurisdiction and access to the resource.

Category 3 - Social Issues

The most common set of concerns articulated by stakeholder goups and through public

meetings were related to drug and alcohol use, threatening behavior and violence. Unlike

some other issues, there were few solutions posed by respondents, and the general level of

concem was very high. Threatening behavior, vicious dogs and gunshots were viewed as

direct threats to persona1 safety, and al1 stakeholders understood the need to take them

serious1 y.

It is difficult in hindsight to evaluate threatening behaviour. A non-Nisga'a harvester would

undoubtedly feel threatened when order off land by a Nisga'a, despite the tàct that he or she

holds a valid pemit to be on the land harvesting mushrooms. It may be, however, that the

person uttering the threat was simply saying what he believed to be correct, based on a map

received fiom Nisga'a Lisims G o v e r n e n t showing areas that permits do not apply.

Similarly, gunshots late in the mushroom harvest season are not unexpected çiven the

overlap between the mushroom harvesting season and the moose hunting season. The fact

remains that many respondents, both Nisga'a and non-Nisga7a, stated that they felt unsafe in

the woods for a variety of reasons. This is an important point ofcommona1ity, and one for

which there appears to be an appetite for exploration and resolution.

The issues related to drug and alcohol use appear somewhat more divisive. Alcohol and drug

use are serious issues in Nisga'a communities, and the apparently unrestricted use of dnigs

and alcohol in mushroom camps is viewed by most Nisga'a respondents as both dangerous

and undesirable. Particularly contentious is the practice of rnushroom buyers offering a beer

to harvesters when they arrive at the buying stations. Many of the respondents who favoured

moving buying station on to Nisga'a Lands raised this issue as a concern. The non-Nisga'a

buyers interviewed, however, saw no probkm with the practice, and felt that it was a

reasonable perquisite to offer to harvesters.

The other common social issue raised was the need for more information, education and

community dialogue about the issues reIated to the pine mushroom industry. Most groups

raised this issue, and a general willingness to l e m and contribute to an educational or

problem-solving process was expressed by alrnost al1 of the respondents.

Category 4 - Jurisdictional Issues

The most cornrnonly expressed issues about jurisdiction were related to misunderstandings

about who hoIds jurisdiction for the regulation of a particular activity, and disagreements as

to who ought to have jurisdiction.

Misunderstandings about jurisdiction were common to most stakehotder groups, and can be

related to the effect of new legislation and new administrative systems. Where

misunderstandings were raised as issues, such as perceived changes to harvesting regdations

during the year, it is reasonable to assume that these issues are relatively easily resolved

through public education.

Jurisdictional disagrecments are of a very different nature. Perceived conflicts between the

new Nisga'a legislation and the traditional Ango'osxw system empioyed by the Nisga'a to

allocate resources are fundamental issues that are being rnanaged under the jurisdiction of

Wilps'Ayuukhl Nisga'a, the Nisga'a legislative body. Similady, disagreement as to who has

the right to limit harvesting on former Indian Reserves is an issue that has already been

resolved legislatively through the Final Agreement, but still emerges on a r ey l a r basis.

These are interna1 political issues for the Nisga'a Nation, and although they are not directly

related to the pine mushroom industry, they do have a significant effect on it.

Many of the issues identified by stakeholders c m be traced back to questions of jurisdiction.

For example, the lack of response by Nisga'a harvesters and buyers to the permit system is

attributed by many of the stakeholder groups as being related to lack of support from Nisga'a

elected oficials of the time. The issues raised with respect to the permit system developed by

Nisga'a Lisims Govemment for the 2000 permit season are particularly illustrative of some

of the jurisdictional issues raised by stakeholders.

Category 5 - Permit Issues

The initial objectives of the permit system were to educate the public about Nisga'a

jurisdiction over the pine mushroom resource on Nisga'a Lands and to collect information

that could be used for the future management of the resource (NLG Lands and Resources

20GOa).

The permit system implementation was the focus of many of the concerns raised by

stakeholders and through public meetings. There was a wide range of opinion about who

should be eligible for permits, how much, if anything, they shouid cost, and whether the

permit system made sense at all. In addition, issues were raised about the lack o f support by

Nisga'a citizens and elected officiais for the permit system, and al1 of the ways that it did not

address issues of public safety, distribution of profits, or jurisdictional issues faced by

Nisga'a Villages and the Nisga7a Nation. In short, the existence o f the permit systern acted as

catalyst for discussions of al1 the issues surrounding the pine rnushroom harvest, and assisted

NLG Lands and Resources towards a relatively comprehensive understanding of the issues

involved (Nisga'a Lisims Governrnent Lands and Resources 2000 b).

Discussions with stakeholders about the permit system provided a fniitfùl starting point to

examine some of the underlying interest that were held with respect to the pine mushroom

industry generally. For example when an interviewee gave his or her view about who should,

or should not, be eligible for a permit, it was easy to investigate how that information was

related to more hndamental economic or social interests sumounding the harvest industry.

To the extent that stakeholders commented on the permit system directly, they usually

expressed a willingness to find ways to make it eflectively address the issues they thought

were important. There were relatively few stakeholders that protested the advisability of a

permit system completely.

Feasibility of a Dispute Resolution System Sandra Kilmartin, in her analysis of the consultative relationships developed through the B.C.

Treaty process, states that: "New relationships are being formed between Aboriginal and

non-Aborigina! people, between First Nations and non-First Nation communities, among

stakeholders themseives and between governments and stakeholders" (2000, p. 1 1 ).

These relationships, defined in the context of the treaty process, are the same ones that exist

in the post treaty environment of the Nass Valley. New relationships, defined by the Final

Agreement and being shaped by the irnplementation processes associated with new

legislation, necessarily bring parties together in new ways. The process of defining these new

relationships, though not without conflict, is inherentIy positive, and can be assisted by on-

going interventions to reduce the level of conflict and increase the positive aspects of the

interactions.

The process of resolving issues associated with the pine mushroom harvest on Nissa'a lands

is a part of a larger process that is transfomative in nature. New relationships of every kind

are being developed in response to the new jurisdictional structure, new geopolitical structure

and new social and econornic dynamics.

It may be that not al1 of the issues that are related to the pine mushroom harvest are amenable

to sohtion through some sort of a consensual, relationship-building process. Costantino and

Merchant define a number of circumstances in which alternate dispute resolution processes

are not appropriate. These include the need to establish precedent and the existence of a

question of significant public policy (1 996, p. 122). Similarly, Susskind, et al. assert that

consensus building processes are not appropriate for disputes based on deeply heid values or

violations of the law (1 999, p.66-67). This would suggest that the jurisdictional issues based

on disagreements about negotiated treaty rights aïe not likely to be resolved through a

consensus-based process, nor are they appropriate topics for discussion in such a forum.

Burton (1 996) differentiates between disputes, which can be settled by compromise, and

conflict, which involve issues on which there c m be no compromise. Disagreements over the

validity of jurisdiction, for exarnple, are not likely to be resolved through f d h e r negotiation.

The Nissa'a Final Agreement defines that jurisdiction, and it would be unrealistic to assume

that the Nisga'a would be willing to sit down and entertain suggestions from other

stakeholders that would transfer any of their jurisdictional authority. It is likely that the

Nisga'a Final Agreement prescribes the arena in which there can be no compromise: from the

Nisga'a perspective the compromises have already been reached. Solutions to the issues

associated with the pine mushroom harvest will, in al1 likelihood, need to be resolved within

the fiamework of the legislative structure that exists in the same way that they would be in

the rest of the province with respect to resources owned by the crown.

There are still plenty of issues associated with the pine mushroorn harvest that appear to be

arnenable to problem-solving processes that are consensus-based. Shared concems about

environmental issues, social and economic development, and access to the resource are al1

potrntially arnenable to solution through processes that bring stakeholders together in search

of solutions.

THE INTERVENTION It is clear that the range of issues that comprise the pine mushroom problem are unlikely to

al1 be amenable to the sarne process o f resolution. The issues raised Vary greatly, and rnay in

some cases be more amenable to a regulatory solution than a consensual one.

Many of the concems identified are related to a lack of information about the industxy

generally, and c m probably be characterized more accurately as issues of education rather

than issues of dispute. Others reflect specific disagreements about regulatory rnatters, some

o f which are in the control of some or al1 of the stakeholders, and some of which are not.

Lastly there is a set of issues raised that is related to the social and economic effects of the

current industry structure.

Lederach, writing in the context of cross-cultural training, suggests that.. . "the participants

and their knowledge are seen as the prirnary resource for training, whether they themselves

initially see themselves as such"(l995, p. 56). This is consistent with the view in the

organizational developrnent Iiterature that the knowledge necessary to resolve issues resides

in the participants, as does an innate understanding of the processes required. (Argyris and

Schoen , 1996; Costantino and Merchant, 1996).

It is important to remember that the resolution of issues associated with the pine rnushroom

harvest will occur within the cultural context of the Nisga'a Nation and the cross-cultural

relationships that exist behveen the Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a stakeholders. This means that

any process for developing solutions to problems identified must be developed specifically in

this context, and must respect the needs of these particular stakeholders.

With the exception of the issue of access to the resource, no one stakeholder has the ability to

resolve any particular issue alone. Nisga'a Lisims Goverment, although it has the regulatory

authority for most of the area, is dependent upon the voluntary cornpliance of owners of fee

simple properties. Experienced harvesters and buyers have abundant knowledge about the

resource and its potential, but do not have the direct ability to ensure that regulations are

effective, nor do they have a shared understanding of what an effective regulatory structure

would look iike. In al1 cases, there is an acknowledged need for more shared information and

a better understanding of each other's interests, but no one party can accomplish that alorie.

Wondelleck States that the first question that decision-makers should ask themselves when

confionting a cornplex situation should be a process question (how to go about making a

decision) and not an otrtcome question (what should be decided) (1988, pp. 221-222). For

this issue, this first question has already been answered. This assessment, developed for the

Forest Resources Department of NLG as convenor, can be considered to be the first step in

defining how to go about developing a process for resolving issues related ta the pine

mushroom industry. The next step is to develop recommendations for consideration by the

Forest Resources Department.

Opportunities and Constraints Each situation presents its own array of existing opportunities and constraints. In addition, a

particular characteristic or circumstance cannot always be clearly def ned as either and

opportunity or a constraint: most have elements of both. Ultimately it will be the perceptions

of the participants and the nature of the process they undertake that will define opportunities

and constraints. There are, however, sorne particular issues of opportunity and constraint that

have been identified during the process of assessment for this project. n e y are in many cases

pragmatic in nature and, if not considered early in the assessment process, may constrain the

problem solving process at a later date. An initial consideration of these issues may be o f

assistance to the Forest Resources Department as it considers the recommendations presented

here. Opportunities and constraints include:

a) The recent history of communication between the Nisga'a and their non-Nisga'a

neighbours. Although their relationships have historically been reasonably positive, it

may be that some deterioration has occurred during the treaty negotiation process. It was

the province of British Columbia, and not the Nisga'a Nation, that negotiated with the fee

simple property owners in the Nass Valley during the negotiation of the treaty (Collier

Azak, Director of Lands and Resources, personal communication). This means that there

have been limited face-to-face negotiations between the Nisga'a and their neighbours

over land or resource issues for a number of years. It is difficult to know the effects o f

this lirnited communication, but it would be wise to give serious consideration to this

issue dunng the design stage of any process of consultation.

b) The relatively small area (approximately 750 square kilometres) of Nisga'a Land that

contains the mushroom resource (Figure 3) combined with the relatively small population

of interest provides some significant opportunities for direct interaction between parties

and interests. A structure that brings stakeholders together already exists through the

consultation sessions that the Forest Resources Department undertakes. It would not be

5 1

dificult to arrange for different stakeholder groups, and indeed the individuals within

those groups, to get to know each other personally.

0 Potenfial Mus hroom Habitat

@ Former Ind ian R e s c ~ e s w l h i n N isg_ala Lands

@ F e e Simple Lands w l h i n N isga'a Lands

Nisga'a Lisims Govcrnment Lands and Rcsources Dircctorate, 200 1 .

Figure 3: Potential mushroom habitat on Nisga'a Lands

c) The geographical complexity of the jurisdiction over pine mushrooms is a significant

constraint to the development of a consistent regulatory framework, if not to the process

itself. The fact that there are two different jürisdictions based on land ownership requires

careful consideration to ensure that one jurisdiction does not hnction to undermine the

other with respect to regulatory issues. The possibility exists, for example, for al1

mushroom buyers to restrict their activity to fee simple properties and ignore Nisga'a

regulations, should those regulations be sufficientIy punitive.

d) It also must be noted that the views of non-resident harvesters have not been

comprehensively canvassed due to the fact that they are both non-resident and primarily

transient. There was no way to include them directly in the interview process. There are,

however, ways in which a process could be structured to include representatives of their

interests dunng the harvest season. A constraint of this nature can be considered to be

temporary, and reasonably easily managed.

e) The seasonal nature of the pine mushroom harvest also presents specific constraints and

opportunities. The four months of the harvest, during which the problems associated with

the harvest are readily apparent, is followed by eight rnonths during which to consider the

experience of the Iast year, and look for ways of improving the experience the next year.

In this way the resolution process is tnily a process, rather than an event. There is always

an opportunity to experiment and to fine-tune solutions identified. This flexibility and

opportunity for on-going improvement, however is accompanied by the fact that once the

harvest is over, the problems disappear, and it is easy for stakeholders to move on to

other issues that are more pressing.

f) Often the development of consultative processes, training opportunities and

communications stnictures are constrained by a lack of financial resources. In the case of

the pine mushroom harvest on Nisga'a lands, there are existing sources that could be

considered for funding such processes, including Nisga'a Lisims Government funding,

permit fees, if permits are used again, and provincial fünding sources such as Forest

Renewal B.C., who have indicated a strong interest in exarnining some of the econornic

and legislative issues surrounding forest botanical products generally and the pine

mushroom harvest generally (Wills and Lipsey, 1999).

g) Probably the most stnking opportunity in this situation is the sense of good will and

willingness to cooperate that was expressed by most, if not all, of the parties. Voluntary

participation, an essential component of a consensus-building process, is easily obtained

when stakeholders are genuinely interested in seeking solutions and learning fiom each

other. The comrnonly identified interest in education and dialogue about issues related to

the pine mushroom industry suggests that stakeholder would corne together with

relatively open minds, and with an interest in both leaming and teaching. This interest in

learning and teaching also creates opportunities for stakeholders to speak to each other

directly, and learn each other's interests and concerns informaIly before any formal

attempt to resolve issues is undertaken.

The Design Process Each theorist who considers the nature of process design for conflict resolution has devised a

list of process elernents that should be considered. Susskind and Thomas-Larmer, (1 999) for

example, propose that elements to be considered include process goals, issues, procedures for

selecting stakeholders, time -es, ground rules, funding, and relationships to other

decision-making processes. Cormick, et al. (1 996) propose that the design should include a

definition of how stakeholders will interact, what the issues are, who the parties are, and

when and where discussions will take place. The details of the design elements may Vary

with the persona1 experience of the writer, but there are some fûndarnentals that are generally

agreed upon. n i e most fundamental of these points of agreement is the need to involve

stakeholders in the design process. This is an irnperative to any process of consensual

problem solving, and is also reflected in the writings with respect to process design across

cultures (Lederach, 1995; Avnich and Black, 1993).

The fact that stakeholders must be included in the design process does not negate the

necessity for someone to take the first step. In this case, this assessrnent can be construed to

be that first step, and the discussion of elements of the design process, while useful as

starting points for consideration, should not be considered to be directive or definitive. It is

fuliy expected that should the stakeholders take up work towards the resolution of these

issues, each of the issues, and rnany more, will be considered in full by al1 parties at that

time.

Education and Communication

The initial assessment of the issues associated with the pine mushroom harvest identified a

number of issues that appeared to be based on a lack of information. In addition, the recent

lack of communications with respect to substantive land or resource issues during the years

of treaty negotiations would suggest that there is work that needs to be undertaken to rebuild

relationships, trust and common understandings. In these instances it is difficult to begin to

define the issues for consideration in advance of communication and education for the

benefit of al1 stakeholders. Hoare, Levy and Robinson ( 1993), in their analysis of action

research in First Nations communities, stress the importance of social investigation and

education in advance of action- Although their process was designed for a First Nation

community specifically, the importance they place on this educational process has merit

across cultures as well. SpecificaIly in this instance, time spent understanding each other's

expertise and knowledge, rather than each other's issues and concems, may be helpful in

establishinç the goundwork for a successful process ofjoint problern solution.

Taking time at the outset to learn frorn each other has other positive implications that should

be considered. Firstly, any activity that brings stakeholders together will ultimately assist in

communications in the long t e m Avruch and Black state that:

If the parties to a conflict are each embedded in different social systems, then the

assumptions each uses about people and how they conflict will most likely also be

different. While it is fallacious to speak of their "culhrres" as being in conflict in

this situation, it is certaidy a fact that cultural differences of this nature can make

meaningfûl communication extraordinarily difficult ( 1 99 1, p. 8).

The more opportunities stakeholders have to get to know each other as human beings, the

less likely that this kind of misunderstanding will harnper their efforts. Secondly, the

opportunity to use educational processes to develop a shared bank of agreed-upon

information will be invaluable when it comes time to discuss potcntial solutions. One of the

common pitfalls of consensus processes is the possibility of disagreements over technical

issues, a problem that Susskind and Cruikshank refer to as the use of 'advocacy science',

where hired experts undennine each other on behalf of their clients (1 987, p. 29). An

educational process developed and attended by al1 stakehoider groups would assist in

ensuring that the expert information collected was supported by al1 parties. A third positive

effect of learning snd spending time together is the ease with which additional stakeholders

can be identified. In the context of learning about the pine mushroom industry, gaps in

information are likely to be linked to missing interests that need to be considered. Fourthly,

and most importantly, the process of education is inherently transfomative. As people learn

about each other and develop a bank of shared experiences, issues that were based in their

Iack of understanding of each other may, in some cases, simply vanish. This transformative

conception of public conflict resolution, according to Dukes ( 1996), has the ability to

transform citizens, communities and institutions.

Defining an Appropriate Process

Although most decisions made by NLG are made by consensus, there is not a great deal of

experience with consensus-based multi-stakeholder negotiations within Nisga'a Lisims

Governent or between NLG and the other stakeholders with an interest in the pine

rnushroom industry. Elected oficials and senior staff of NLG involved in the treaty process

have experienced negotiated processes that are somewhat different than would be expected in

a consensus seeking process. Those negotiations were characterized by positional bargaining

and the product is viewed, specifically by Nisga'a people, as a compromise, rather than as a

solution that meets the needs of aIl parties.

This limited experience with in consensus-based multi-stakeholder negotiations suggests a

further learning opportunity. The Forest Resources Department, while it is interested in

recommendations towards the resolution of some of the issues associated with the pine

mushroom harvest, has not made any kind of a cornmitment to a consensus-based process,

and would need to understand the possibilities oRered by such a process in sorne detail

before committing to the process. In addition, First Nations experiences in previous

consensus based processes, specifically the Land and Resource Management Planning

(LRMP) process established by the Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO) of the provincial

government, have not been universally positive, and there is some hesitation towards

invoivement in such a process.(Keith Atkinson, Manager of Forest Resources, persona1

communication) None of the other stakeholders mentioned any experience with consensus-

based processes other than those employed through the treaty process.

There is a general level of agreement that the problem-solving mechanisms ernployed so far

have been less than effective in meeting the stakeholder's needs. The fact that the 2000

permit system was identified as problematic by almost al1 of the respondents, along with the

espoused willingness to be involved in seeking new solutions, suggests that there may be an

appetite for, if not a good understanding of, a consensus-based process.

A common way of introducing the possibility of a consensusbased process to stakeholders is

to hold a session or series of session in which participants are trained in consensus-based

processes. This approach can be somewhat of a problem in a cross-cultural context, çiven the

difficulty of anticipating cuItural differences. For exarnple, the reluctance of some of the

Nisga7a mushroom harvesters to voice an opinion until they were certain that it is correct,

would make the commonly used process of brainstorming less than usehl. In a culture that

prizes thoughtfulness and accuracy, guessing at possible solutions may not corne easily.

Lederach suggests a set of guiding principles for training in crosçcultural settings: These are:

The principle of conflict resolution itz siru, which refers to the fact that in any

situation conflict resolution strategies already exist and are in practice,

The principle of indigenous empowernlent, which states that people in the

setting a the key resource,

The principle of conscientization, refemng to the need for self-awareness and

knowledge of one's own cultural processes,

The principle of recycling, in which current conflict resolution processes are re-

examined in light of an understanding of the different processes employed by

various stakeholders, and

The principle of facilitation as opposed to expert leadership ( 1 995, p. 1 10-1 14).

These principles are consistent with the prïnciples of consensus building, and indeed are

likely to be realized through the process of joint education discussed above. Cross-cultural

use of consensus building is not impossible. Forester, in the context of discussing deep value

difirences such as are often found in a cross-cultural situation, states that what is needed

is.. . "competence - the deliberative abilities to listen leam, and probe both fact and value

together - which democratic citizens can refine and practice as they deal with their

differences and so govern themselves" (1 999, p. 464-465).

In pragrnatic tenns, participants in any process are not going to have a universal

understanding of intercultural communication or consensus-based multi-stakeholder

negotiations. What is more important, and indeed essential to the success of any process, is

the willingness to learn and cooperate towards each other's successes. These characteristics

are evidenced in each stakeholder group, and are therefore likely to be evidenced in the

processes developed.

The fact that the issues are being managed in a climate of structural change also presents a

clear opportunity for finding creative solutions to some of the issues. Regulation of the pine

mushroom industry is a new concept, and that fact combined with the newness of the Nisga'a

s legislative structure means that it is possible to work towards a functional regdatory

structure without the constraints of a pre-defined system of regdation and controls. This

gives Nisga'a Lisims Govemment, as the jurisdictional authority, the ability to engage in

whatever process it finds is most useful to develop its replations and help to resolve issues

that are problematic for al1 of the stakeholders.

It is not possible to define the specifics of exactly the right process in advance. There are,

however, some general parameters for constructive communication in conflict situations that

are usefül to consider in the design of a dispute resolution system. These include:

a) Creating opportunities to build or re-build trust arnong parties,

b) Finding ways to share information,

c) Taking time to explore what different processes might look like, and how they might

work,

d) Giving carefül consideration to who convenes the process,

e) Involving stakeholders in al1 aspects of the design,

f) Drawing upon the knowledge and experience of stakeholders, and,

g) Ensuring that adequate resources are available to effectively support the process.

Proposed Structure and the Process of the Intervention - Recomrnendations

At this stage any proposals with respect to the structure and process of an intervention are

necessarily speculative. In order for the Forest Resources Department to assess the value of

embarking on an inclusive process of dispute resolution, however, it needs to have some

sense of what a process might look like, how long it might take, and what costs would be

incurred. In addition, NLG needs to have enough information to decide whether there is an

advantage to undertaking a consensus-based process as opposed to some other method of

managing conflicts.

Education and Communication

Given the information provided by stakeholders so far, any dispute resolution process for the

pine rilushroom industry would be most likely to be successful if it began with a process of

education and communication that involves al1 stakeholders. This could take many forms, but

should be open to al1 who wish to participate, no matter tvhat their interest in the pine

mushroom industry, and should give al1 participants the opportunity to both teach and l e m .

A logical product of this process would be a base of information that is agreed upon by al1

parties. Corollary benefits would include an increased awareness of cultural issues by al1

parties, the development of persona1 relationships across stakeholder groups, and a general

demystification of the pine mushroom industry and each stakeholder's role in it. Such a

process could be convened by Nisga'a Lisims Govement , and would, according to

stakeholders interviewed, be a welcome opportunity to share information in an environment

that did not threaten any particular interest group. Ideally some or al1 of the session could

take place during the harvest season when non-resident harvesters with their knowledge of

the management of the pine mushroom harvest in other jurisdictions, have the opportunity to

attend. Necessary resources would include process support to schedule and run meetings and

to collate information, and sufficient funding to rent facilities and provide snacks.

Even if the process did not advance past the education stage, it is likely that there would be

significant benefits to the communities generally, and the participants in the pine mushroom

industry specifically.

Process Definition

The process of stakeholder education and communication will, in and of itself, begin to

define issues for consideration. In order to move fonvard to the consideration of these issues,

however, it is necessary to develop a structure and process for doing so. It is here that the

process needs to become more structured, and agreement reached on how to proceed. It is

also at this point that participants will be able to decide if a consensus-based process will

assist them in resolving the outstanding issues with respect to the pine mushroom industry.

A workshop in consensus-based processes would be rnost likely to have some value at this

juncture. Consensus-based decision-making is not a new concept for the Nisga'a, and is the

rule, rather than the exception in Nisga'a political structures. The process for reaching that

consensus, however, may be quite different than one would expect in other cultural contexts.

An elicitive process, such as that described by Lederach, could help to ensure that the process

developed is respecthl of the nseds of al1 parties, Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a. A skilled process

facilitator would be helpfül for this task, and could assist participants to design a process that

wouId be appropriate for this particular collection of issues and stakeholders. Products of the

training session could include a ground rules for proceeding to consider disputed issues, a

finalized List of stakeholders that need to be included, and recommendations as to how any

process wouid be funded and supported. The fact that there has been some shared

communication and education as a starting point to the process can be expected to simplify

the design process.

It is reasonable to expect Nisga'a Lisims Governrnent to sponsor an event such as this, given

its ultimate authority with respect to the resource. Process support would include the cost of

the facilitator, hall rentaI, and any meals or accommodation that is required. The length of the

session is difficult to detennine, but could be as short as one day or as long as three.

There may be a decision made during this session by one or al1 of the stakeholders not to

proceed with a consensus-based process. If some of the stakeholders choose not to proceed,

there is an opportunity for the remainder to jointly discuss the usefulness of proceeding in

their absence and realistically assess options. If al1 stakeholders choose not to proceed, the

value of the session is not lost. The process of meeting to discuss problern-solving methods is

valuable in itself, and al1 participants will still leave with a better understanding of the

concerns of the others.

Issue Definition

If there is a decision to go fonvard with a consultative process, one of the first tasks wil1 be

issue identification. It is important that the issues that are to be discussed be carefully

defined, and that al1 parties to the discussions agree to the definition. There are, according to

Cormick, et al, ( I 996) no firm rules about the range of issues to be included, but it makes

sense for participants to define the issues in such a way that there is specific agreement on

the nature of the issue, if not, obviousiy, on its resolution. It is also realistic to choose to

exclude issues that cannot be resolved through the current process or are irrelevant to it. It is

likely that the issues will change significantly during the previous interactions between

stakeholders: issues that were once important rnay cease to exist, and new ones may emerge.

On the strength of their shared understanding, it shouId be possible to identiQ extremely

complex or inaccessible issues and realistically assess both if and how to attempt to resoive

thern. Some systems. such as the international marketing structure of the pine mushmom

industry, may prove too complex and inaccessible at this time. There may be another time,

however, when other issues have been resolved, that it would make sense to consider them.

Only the group, on the basis of its work to this point, will be able to make this kind of

decision. Similarly, the issue of who has access to the resource, although it is clearly in the

realm of Nisga'a Lisims Govement , may be one for which the group wishes to develop

recommendations based on their experiences and knowledge. Understanding that they do not

have the authority to make the decision need not necessarily preclude advising Nisga'a

Lisims Government of their views.

It is probable that treaty issues defined in a tripartite negotiation between the Nisga'a Nation,

Canada and British Columbia are not amendable through a local stakeholder process.

Examples include disagreements as to who ought to have jurisdiction over resources on

Nisga'a lands, or who ought to decide issues of access to the resource.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to list the issues that appear to be amenable to solution in

advance of developing the process for coming to those solutions. Indeed, it is Iikely that the

nature of the issues will change significantly through a process of education and mutual fact-

finding.

Interim Considerations

No matter how the resolution process for the issues associated with the pine rnushroom

harvest is ultimately designed, it will not exist in a vacuum. The mushroom harvest season

cannot be postponed while decisions are made, and the resource management work of the

Forest Resources Department must continue. One of the most challenging tasks for the staff

o f that department is to manage the resource in a way that minimizes conflict while issues are

being resolved.

Costantino and Merchant, writing in the context of conflict in organizations, state that

conflict is a regular product of organizational improvement eff-orts (1996, p. 27). This is

certainly mie in the Nisga'a context. The Final Agreement, for exarnple, has unavoidabiy

created some level of conflict both internally to the Nation and in the Province of British

Columbia generally. Similarly, the Pine Mushroom Management Plan and attendant permit

system, designed to begin to address problems identified in the pine mushroom industry, both

resolved problems and created others- There is no ciiticism of the Pine Mushroorn

Management Plan or the Forest Resources Department staff implied in this statement. It is

just a fact that change is not simple, and that the resolution of one problem is ofien likely to

create another. In some cases this is unavoidable. The simple fact that the Nisga'a now have

jurisdiction over the resource creates a certain arnount of conflict.

In other cases, however, new problems are created unintentionally through the development

of regulations and policies that are overly cornplex or difficult to enforce. Inconsistent

enforcement, for example, can create previously non-existent concems about favoritism or

discriminatory treatment. Such concems do not necessarily have to be grounded in reality to

be real problems. If people believe they are being treated unfairly, the problem exists and

must be managed. Similarly, if regulations are not well understood they can create confusion

and disagreement about what is allowed and what is not. This disagreement then becornes a

problem in its own nght. Not al1 of these issues can be avoided. They c m , however, be

minimized by keeping interim replations as simple as possible and by avoiding regulations

entirely until they are enforceable.

A fùrther interim issue for consideration is related to the realities of the politics of change.

Costmtino and Merchant state that it is important to ". . anticipate, admit and address the

real-life political dynamics of any change effort. There will be gains and losses in perceived

power as a result of any change; there will be resistance and constraints to overcome"(1996,

p. 1 12). In this context it is important to remember that any change in jurisdiction wiIl create

dissatisfaction, and reacting to rhat dissatisfaction by changing regulations or policy will

simply shift the problem to another party who is unhappy with the new regulation or policy.

Quick reaction, rather than thoughtful response, is as likely to create new problems as solve

existing ones, and is also likely to foster another range of concerns related to inconsistency

and complexity. M i l e simple, understandable and enforceable regulations are aIways

preferable, these qualities are even more important during times of transition.

Context

The Nisga'a Nation faces tremendous challenges over the next few years. The

responsibilities taken on by the nation are immense and the range of issues that require

urgent consideration is formidable. Housing, provision of social services, justice and

policing, fisheries, land management and forestry are just some of the program areas that are

under development. (Nisga'a Nation, 200 1) In this context the concems with respect to the

pine mushroom harvest may seem insignificant, and perhaps are. It is to be expected that

there would be concerns about expending resources to deveIop a process for managing this

issue, with so rnany more complex and more important ones waiting for attention.

I t can be argued, however, that the small scale of the pine mushroom harvest issues and the

limited number of participants in the resource are exactly the reasons to support using this

example to explore new ways of resolving issues. There will be other, probably more

contentious, issues that arise in the Nisga'a Nation, and those issues can be expected to

include some of the same basic elements as the pine mushroom harvest. Concems about

access to Nisga'a Nation resources, public safety and the environment are not restricted to

the pine mushroom industry. By working through these issues in the relative simplicity of the

mushroom context, an opportunity exists to extend the problem-solving skills of Nisga'a

citizens in ways that can be useh l to the consideration of wider and more complex issues.

The skills and relationships developed by participants have value that extends beyond the

issue of pine mushrooms. For these reasons it is recommended that the exploration of a

consensus-based process for the consideration of issues associated with the pine rnushroom

harvest be supported as a pilot project not only by the Forest Resources Department, but by

the govemment as a whole.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of a credible and functional process for managing some of the conflicts

associated with the pine mushroom harvest can have a number of positive effects. Firstly, it

can assist the Forest Resources Department in some very practical ways to address its current

resource management problems. Secondly, it can aid in the development of richer and more

productive relationships between the Nisga'a people and their neighbours. And thirdly, it can

assist in the understanding o f the new relationships that need to be developed to ensure the

successfùl impiementation of new decision-making structures that are developed through

other treaty processes.

The conflicts that have developed over the pine mushroom on Nisga'a Lands are iikely to be

characteristic of many conflicts that &se in the wake of new treaties. As governance,

decision-making and junsdictional structures change, old relationships between First Nation

and non-First Nation communities of interest, as well as within First Nation communities,

necessarily change with them. Jurisdiction over resources, particularly, is likely to be

difficult to manage within conventional dscision-making structures, given that these

structures and systems always, ultimately, assign the decision-making power to the Province,

and relegate First Nations to an advisory or consultative role. There is, quite simply, very

Iittle experience in British Columbia with resource decisions being made directly by First

Nations.

Avruch, et al. state that "where practice is situated, there is theory derivedV(l 99 1, p. 4).

Certainly in this case, given the Iimited experience in British Columbia with First Nations

junsdiction over resources, the establishment of a process to consider the issues associated

with the pine mushroom harvest on Nisga'a Lands can assist the on-going cross cultural

dialogue that is beginning between British Columbia's First Nations and their non-First

Nations neighbours.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1978). Oreanizational Leamine: a Theorv of Action Perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison - Wesley Publishing Company.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1996). Oreanizational Learnine II: Theorv. Method and Practice Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

Avruch, K. and Black, P.W. (1993). Conflict Resolution in Intercultural Settings: Problems and Prospects. In Sandole, D.J.D and van der Menve, H. (Eds.). Conflict Resolution Theorv and Practice: Integration and Application. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Avruch, K., Black, P., and Scimecca, J. (Eds.). (199 1). Conflict Resolution: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Bagordo, P. L. (2000) The 1nte.wation of First Nations Leadership Principles and Practices into the Master of Arts in Leadership and Training Program at Royal Roads University. Victoria, B .C.: Royal Roads University.

Bama, L. M. Stumbling Blocks in Intercultural Communication. ( 1994) In Sarnov. L. A. and Porter, R.E. (Eds.). Intercultural Communication: A Reader. (pp. 337-345). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Bartunek, J.M. and Reid, R. D. (1 992) The Rise of Conflict in a Second Order Change Attempt. In Kolb, D.M. and Bartunek, J . M (Eds.). Hidden Conflict in Organizations. (pp. 209-228). Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Bennis, W. G. (1966). Chaneing Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berch, S. (1996). Nisga'a Pine Mushroom Pilot Proiect: Preliminarv Investigation of the Ecolow and Productivitv of Tricholoma maqnivelare in the Field and in the Lab. Victona, B.C.: Glyn Road Research Station.

Boldt, M. (1993). Surviving as Indians. the Challen-ge of Self Govemment Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. (1 995). Summarv of Public Response. Pine Mushroom Task Force Recommendations. Victona, B.C.: Integrated Resource Policy Branch.

British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Commission on Resources and Environment, Fraser Basin Management Program and National Round Table. (1 993). Local Round Tables: Realizing their Full Potential. Ottawa, Ontario: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy:

Broome, B.J. (1 993) Managing Differences in Conflict Resolution: the Role of Relational Empathy. In Sandole, D.J.D and van der Mewe, H. (Eds.). Conflict Resolution Theorv and Practice: Intemation and Application. (pp. 97- 1 1 1 ). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Brown, B. Public Organizations and Policies in Conflict: Notes on Theory and Practice. (1 993). In Sandole, Demis J.D. and van der Merwe, H. (Eds.). Conflict Resolution Theorv and Practice. New York: Manchester University Press.

Burton, .J. W. (1996). Conflict Resolution: Its Lanmaqe and Processes. London: Scarecrow Press.

Canada, British Columbia, Nisga7a Nation. (1998) Nisca'a Final A.meernent.

Carlson, C. Convening. (1999). In Susskind. L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J. (Eds). The Consensus Buildinq Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. (pp. 1 73- 198). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Carpenter, S.L. and Kennedy, W.J.D. (1988) Managine Public Disputes: A Practical Guicie to Handling Conflict and Reachinq A.meernents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers

Chapman, I., McCaskill, D., and Newhouse, D. (1 99 1) Management in Contemporary Aboriginal Organizations. Canadian Journal of Native Studies. 1 1 :2. 333-349.

Cohen, R. (199 1). Neeotiatina Across Cultures. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace.

Cormick, G. W. (1989). Establishing a Framework - Agreeing on Groundrules. Neeotiation Journal Vol 5. NO. 2 -125-132.

Cormick, G., Dale, N., Emond, P., Sigurdson, S. G. and Stuart, B. D. (1996). Bui!din.e Consensus for a Sustainable Future: Putting Principles into Practice. Ottawa, Ontario: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy:

Corsiglia, J. and Snivley, G. (1 997). Knowing Home: NisGa'a Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom lmprove Environmental Decision Making. Alternatives Journal. Sumrner 1997. Volume 23. pp.22-25.

Costantino, C. A. and Merchant, C, S. (1996). Desi.ming Conflict Manaeement S~stems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

De Leeuw, S. Shroom Season at the Zoo. (1 999). ~~r~V~V.cc7nncctiot~s~na~ne.bc.ca~f~l199/zou.l~hnl

Dukes, E.F. (1 996). Resolving Public Conflict. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Patton, B. (1991). Gettine to Yes: Neeotiatine Ameement Without Giving In. (2"d edition). New York: Penguin Books. -

Forester, J. (1999). Dealing with Deep Value Diflerences. In Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J.(Eds). The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reachine Agreement. (pp. 463-494) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Fry, D.P. and Fry, C.B. (1997) Culture and Conflict Resolution Models: Exploring Alternatives to Violence. In Fry, D.P.and Bjorkqvist, K. (Eds.). Cultural Variations in Conflict Resolution: Alternatives to Violence. (pp. 1 - 14) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Gadlin, H. ( 1994) Conflict Resolution, Cultural Differences and the Culture of Racism. In Mcfarlane, J. (Ed.). (1999). Dispute Resolution Readings and Case Studies. (pp. 84-57). Toronto: Edmond Montgomery Publications Limited.

Gamiet, S., Ridenour, H. and Philpot, F. (1998). An Overview of Pine Mushrooms in the Skeena- Bulklev Valley. Smithers, B.C.: Northwestem Institute for Bioregional Studies.

Hall, E.T. Context and Meanine, (1994). In Porter, R. and Samovar L. Intercultural Communication: A Reader. (pp 60-70). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Hoare, T., Levy, C., and Robinson, M. P. (1993) Participatory Action Research in Native Communities: Cultural Opportunities and Legal Implications. Canadian Journal of Native Studies. 13( 1 ). (pp. 44-68)

Huber, M. (1993). Mediation around the Medicine Wheel. Mediation Ouarterlv 10:4. (pp. 355-365).

Jandt, F.E. and Pedersen, P.B. (1996). Constructive Conflict Management: Asia-Pacific Cases. Thousand Oaks, Califomia: SAGE Publications.

Kilmartin, S. (2000). Building New Relationships through Consultation for Treatv Makine in British Columbia. Royal Roads University, Victoria, B.C.

Kniger, J. (1994). The Tapestry of Culture: A Design for the Assessrnent of Intercultural Disputes (excerpt) in Mcfarlane, J. (Ed.). (1999). Dispute Resolution Readings and Case Studies. Toronto: Edmond Montgomery Publications Limited.

LeBaron Duryea, M. (1992). Conflict and Culture: A Literature Review and Bibliomaphv. Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria Institute for Dispute Resolution.

LeBaron Duryea, M. (1 994) Trainine Matenals: Conflict Analysis and Resolution as Education: Culturally Sensitive Processes for Conflict Resolution. Victoria: University of Victoria Institute for Dispute Resolution.

LeBaron Duryea, M. Mediation, Conflict Resolution and Multicultural Reality (excerpt), (1 997). In Mcfarlane, J. (Ed.). (1 999). Dispute Resolution Readings and Case Studies. Toronto, Ontario: Edmond Montgomery Publications Limited.

Lederach, J. P. Training on Culture: Four Approaches. (1 990). MCS Concilliation Ouarterly Winter 1 9 9 0 . 4 ~ ~ .

Lederach, J.P. (1995). Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Lewicki, R. J., Litterer, J. A., Minton, J. W. and Saunders, D.M. (1994). Negotiation (excerpt) in Mcfarlane, J. (Ed.). ( 1999). Dispute Resolution Readings and Case Studies. Toronto, Ontario: Edmond Montgomery Publications Limited.

Lieberman, D.A. Ethnocognitivism, Problem Solving and Hemisphencity. (1 994) In Porter, R. and Samovar L. (Eds.). Intercultural Communication: A Reader. (pp. 1 78- 193) Belmont, California: Wadsworth PubIishing Company.

Lund, B. Moms, C. and LeBaron Duryea, M. (1994). Conflict and Culture: Report of the Multiculturalisrn and Dispute Resolution Proiect. Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria Institute of Dispute Resolution.

Matakala, P. W. (1995). Decision-Making and Conflict Resolution in Co-Management: - Two Case Studies fiom Temagarni, Northeastem Ontario. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia. 254.pp.

McWhimey, W. (1 992). Paths of Change: Strategic Choices for Organizations and Societies. Newbury Park, Califomia: SAGE Publications.

Menzies, CR., Mattson, L. and Butler, C. (1 999). Nisga'a Pine Mushroom Resource Management and Economic Development Research Report. New Aiyansh, B.C.: Nisga'a Forest Sector Planning Cornmittee.

Nisga'a Lisims Government Lands and Resources. (2000a). Pine Mushroom Management Plan. New Aiyansh, B.C.: Nisga'a Lisirns Government.

Nisga'a Lisims Government Lands and Resources (2000b). Pine Mushroom Completion Report for the 2000 Season. New Aiyansh, B.C.: Nisga'a Lisims Government.

Nisga'a Nation. (2001). Annual Report. New Aiyansh B.C.: Nisga'a Lsisms Government.

Porter, R. E. and Samovar, L. A. (1994). An Introduction to Intercultural Communication. In Porter, R. and Samovar L. (Eds.). Intercultural Communication: A Rsader. (pp. 1-26). Belmont, Califomia: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Rothman, J. (1 997). Resolving Identity-Based Conflict: In Nations. Organizations and Cornmunities. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Rubenstein, R.E. (1993). Analyzing and Resolving Class Conflict. in Sandole, D.J.D and van der Meme, X. (Eds.). Conflict Resolution Theorv and Practice: Inteqration and Application Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Senge, P.M. ( 1994) The Fifih Discipline Field Book. New York: Doubleday.

Strauss, D. A. Designing a Consensus Building Process using a Graphic Road Map. (1 999). In Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larrner, J.(Eds). The Consensus Buildin9; Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reachinq Agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action Research (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks C A S A G E Publications.

Susskind, L. and Cruikshank, J.( 1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. Mass.: Basic Books.

Susskind, L. and Thomas Larrner, J. (1 999) Conducting a Conflict -4ssessment. In Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larrner, J.(eds) The Consensus Building: handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reachin.~ Agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Lamer, J.(eds) (1 999). The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching A-greernent. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Tidwell, Alan C. (1 998). Conflict Resolved? New York: Pinter.

Ting-Toomey, S, Conflict and Culture: Functional Interdependence. (1 999). In McFarlane, J. (Ed.). Dispute ResoIution Readings and Case Studies. Toronto, Ontario: Edmond Montgomery Publications Limited.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing Intercultural Conflicts Effectively. In Porter, R. and Samovar L. (Eds.). Intercultural Communication: A Reader. .(pp 360 - 372) Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Todd, D. (2000, Novernber 4). A G o v e r n e n t is Born. The Vancouver Sun. p. A20.

Tully, J.. A Just Relationship. (2000).In Cook, Curtis and Lindau, JuanD. Aboriginal Rights and Self-Government. MontreaI. P-Q: McGill-Queens University Press

Ury, W. (1993). Ge t t i n~ Past No: Negotiatine Your Wav fiom Confrontation to Cooperation. New York: Bantarn Books.

Wehr, P. (1 979). Conflict Regulation, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wills, R.M. and Lipsey, R.G. (1 999)- An Economic Strateqy to Develop Non-Tirnber Forest Products and Services in British Columbia. Forest Renewal B.C. Project No. PA97538-ORE. Bowen Island, B.C.: Cognetics International Research Inc.

Wondelleck, J. M. (1988). Public Lands Conflict and Resolution: Managing National Forest Disputes. New York: Plenum Press.

Wondelleck, J. M. and Crowfoot, J. E. (1 990). Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement in Conflict ResoIution. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

APPENDIX A

Introduction Script for Interviews and Interview Questions

Good morning, my name is Diane Cragg. You may h o w me as the Lands Manager for Nisga7a Lisims Government but 1 am also learner in the Master o f Conflict Analysis and Management program at RoyaI Roads University. Do you have a some time to talk just now?

(If yes, continue) (If no, schedule another time)

As part of the requirement for my Master's Degree, 1 am currently assisting the Forest Resources Department o f Nisga'a Lisims Governrnent to develop recommendations for the management o f the pine mushroorn harvest on Nisga7a Lands. This is a volunteer effort, and not part of my responsibilities as an employee o f NLG. Your name was given to me by ***, who thought that you might have valuable insights into the pine mushroom industry in this area. 1 am hoping that you will spend a some time talking to me about your experiences with the pine mushroom industry. The information 1 am seeking is related to your general experiences, and particularly your experiences with the mushroom harvest since Nisga'a Lisims Government gained jurisdiction over the mushroom resource. 1 am no! interested in, and not collecting information about, yocir earnings or the areas where you harvest, if you are a harvester. If you are willing to proceed with this conversation, I would like you to know that 1 will be taking notes. I would be pleased to read thern back to you at the end of the interview, and, if you like, I can provide you with a copy. I will not, however, identiQ you by name in my notes, nor will 1 make the notes or any identieing information available to any other person. Your participation is entirely voluntary. You are free to decline to answer questions, and you are fiee to end the conversation at any time with no negative consequence. 1 only have a few simple questions for you, and Our interview could take as little as fifieen minutes. If you have a lot of information for me, however, it could take longer. The length of the conversation is entirely up to you. The results of my research project will be provided both to the Forest Resources Department of Nisga'a Lisims Govemment and to Royal Roads University. Again, there will be no identi@ing persona1 inforrnation recorded or reported. 1 would be pleased to give you contact information for my project supervisor at Nisga'a Lisims Government as well as rny thesis advisor if would like to verifi the information 1 have given you. As well, here is a copy of my business card. My home address and telephone number are on the back in case you would like to contact me at any t i i x .

Are there any questions that you would like to ask me about my project or about your participation? May 1 proceed to ask my questions and take notes?

Interview Questions:

1. What is your experience in the pine mushroom industry? 2. What are some of the problems you have had? 3. How (if at d l ) has your experienced changed since the Treaty and Nisga'a Legislation

came into effect? 4. Who else should 1 speak to about the pine mushroom industry?

APPENDIX B

Response Summaries by Category Economic Issues

Mushrooms are an important cash crop Need to increase benetït to Nisga'a citizens Children and seniors shoulci not have to pay Low prices paid by buyers Should not iimit the number of buyers - would depress market Buyers should set up in New Aiyansh rather than Nass Camp Too many buyers Village govemment should provide space for buyers Should be run Iike a business It is possible to control pnces Mushrooms are being bought and resold Could charge buyers buy the pound Better to charge buyers than pickers Don't want to declare income Fees are an appropriate way of regulating the resource Taxes should not be imposed on Nisga'a citizens Should have to pay to camp Should hire people to pick up garbage

Social Issues

Alc~hol and drug problem Do something about free beer at depots Fear of vicious dogs in the woods Firearms - gunshots heard Non-Nisga'a being threatened More non-resident harvesters than there used to be Control camping on Nisga'a Lands Need monitoring and policing ShouId authorize volunteer policing Buyers should be bonded to control behavior. Many buyers unethical Need a way to divide the resource behveen villages with "traditional' picking areas. Need to foster cooperation between Villages Sorne people don't have Nisga'a cards yet. What if wife is non-Nisga'a?

Should have newsletter and public meetings with pickers Lack of information to public

Jurisdictional Issues

No regdation - situation has gotten out of hand Should support Nisga'a regulations Elected officials did not always support process Ambiguity from elected officials about need for permit Government is not listening to people Misfit between treaîy and legislation Was told by a buyer he doesn't need a permit and should retum it for a refund. Forest Resources Manager has no right to decide what happens Conflict of interest with VillageNation staff Non-Nisga'a can now harvest anywhere, even former reserves Only Nisga7a should pick on Nisga'a lands Protect some areas for Nisga'a No non-Nisga7a should be allowed on former IRs Should put up gate on IR1 And IR 1 A Have been protecting area from non-Nisga'a Area recognized as belonginç to eagle clan - will continue to ask people to leave Trap line owners should have control over the mushroorns on their trap lines Have not given up traditional rights to mushrooms Non-Canadians should not be allowed US citizens should need a work visa Need buyers on Nis~a 'a lands to enforce regulations - should corne back to Aiyansh from Nass Camp Should not change regulations or picking areas during the year

Environmental Issues

Garbage in woods and at camps left by harvesters Nisga'a should pick up their own garbage Unregulated camping Pollution - raw sewage Raking of the forest floor for mushroorns Effects of clearcutting on mushroom habitat Inexperienced pickers damage resource Would like information about the relative economics of trees vs mushrooms People should be walking only in the woods - no ATVs, helicopters or vehicles Should enforce no picking of other resources (ie. lobster mushrooms)

Permit System

Permit fees are reasonable because the money is used for studying the resource Permit p i c e reasonable Should be sarne pnce for everyone Nisga'a harvesters did not buy perrnits Nisga'a citizens insulted by the need to buy permits 60-70% of non- Nisga'a harvesters bought perrnits Number of pickers should be limited Permits should b e sold on a weekly basis Should be less expensive for recreational (weekend) pickers Should be more expensive for non-Nisga'a Permits should go to Nisga'a first, then neighbours Children should not need pennits Elders should not need permits Elders should for pay permits Permits are being sold to criminals Permit system needs to be enforced Where does permit money go? Buyers permits are a good idea - Nisga'a have the nght to charge Buyers permit paid for by exporter No Nisga'a buyers bought permits Buyers should forfeit permit for unlawful behavior Need better enforcement New map given out by staff without permission - created confusion Should not instigate permit system until ready- figure it out first

APPENDIX C

Response Summary by Stakeholder Group

Nisga'a Harvesters

Economic Issues Mushrooms are an important cash crop Need to increase benefit to NisgaTa citizens Children and seniors should not have to pay Should have to pay to camp

Junsdictional Issues Non-Nisga'a can now harvest anywhere, even former reserves Misfit between treaty and legislation Only Nisga'a should pick on Nisga'a lands Ambiguity from elected officiais about need for permit Govenunent is not listening to peopIe Lack of information to public

Environmental Issues Garbage in woods and at camps lefi by harvesters Unregulated camping Raking of the forest floor for mushrooms

Permit Issues Children should not need permits Elders should not need perrnits Number of pickers should be limited Should be less expensive for recreational (weekend) pickers Permits should go to Nisga'a first, then neighbours

Non-Nisga'a Harvesters

Economic Issues Low prices paid by buyers Don't want to declare income

Social Issues Fear of vicious dogs in the woods F i r e m s - gunshots heard

Non-Nisga'a being threatened

Jurisdictional Issues No regulation - situation has gotten out of hand Should support Nisga'a regulations Need better enforcement

Environmental Issues Effects of clearcutting on mushroom habitat Garbage in woods and at camps left by harvesters Inexperienced pickers damage resource Would Iike information about the relative economics of trees vs mushrooms

Permit Issues Permit fees are reasonable because the money is used for studying the resource Permit pnce reasonable

Nisga'a Buyers

Economic Issues Should be run like a business It is possible to control prices Could charge buyers buy the pound Taxes should not be imposed on Nisga'a citizens Should have to pay to camp Do something about fiee beer at depots

Social Issues Alcohol and dmg problem Control camping on Nisga'a Lands Buyers should be bonded to control behavior.

Jurisdictional Issues Conflict of interest with Village/Nation staff Need buyers on Nisga'a lands to enforce regulations - should come back to Aiyansh fiom Nass Camp Should put up gate on IR1 And IR1 A Village govemment should provide space for buyers Lack of information to public No non-Nisga'a should be allowed on former IRs Need better enforcement

Environmental Issues Garbage in woods and at camps lefi by harvesters Raking of the forest floor fcr rnushrooms

Permit Issues Buyers should forfeit permit for unlawful behavior Buyers permit paid for by exporter Should not instigate perrnit system until ready- figure it out first ShouId be more expensive for non-Nisga'a

Non-Nisga'a Buyers

Economic Issues Mushrooms are being bought and resold Should not limit the number of buyers - would depress market Buyers should set up in New Aiyansh rather than Nass Camp

Social Issues Many buyers unethical Non-Nisga'a being threatened More non-resident harvesters than there used to be Alcohol and dmg problem Control camping on Nisga'a Lands

Jurisdictional Issues No regulation - situation has gotten out of hand Should not change regulations or picking areas during the year Village government should provide space for buyers Need better enforcement

Environmerital Issues Effects of clearcutting on rnushroom habitat Nisga'a should pick up their own garbage

Permit Issues Permit system needs to be enforced Nisga'a harvesters did not buy permits Buyers permits are a good idea- Nisga'a have the right to charge Buyers permit paid for by exporter New map given out by staff without permission - created confusion Should be more expensive for non-Nisga'a

NLG Forestry Staff

Economic Issues Low prices paid by buyers

Social Issues Need a way to divide the resource between villages with "traditional' picking areas. Need monitoring and policing Need to foster cooperation between Villages

Jurisdictional Issues Elected officials did not always support process Should have newsletter and public meetings with pickers

Permit Issues Permit system needs to be enforced New map given out by staff without permission - created confusion No Nisga'a buyers bought permits Nisga'a citizens insulted by the need to buy permits 60-70% of non- Nisga'a harvesters bought permits

NLG Elected Officiais

Economic Issues Fees are an appropriate way of regulating the resource

Social Issues Alcohol and drug problem

Jurisdictional Issues Protect some areas for Nisga'a Should have newsletter and public meetings with pickers

Environmental Issues Unregulated camping Raking of the forest floor for mushrooms

Permit Issues Permit price reasonable

Unattributed (from public meetings and public comment sheets)

Economic issues Taxes should not be imposed on Nisga'a citizens Children and seniors should not have to pay Should have to pay to camp

Social issues Do something about free beer at depots Should authorize volunteer policing What if wife is non-Nisga'a?

Jurisdictional Issues Have been protecting area from non-Nisga'a Area recognized as belonging to eagle clan - will continue to ask people to leave Trap line owners should have control over the mushrooms on their trap lines Have not given up traditional rights to mushrooms Some people don? have Nisga'a cards yet. Should have newsletter and public meetings with pickers Was told by a buyer he doesn't need a permit and should return it for a refund. No non-Nisga'a should be aliowed on former IRs Non-Canadians should not be allowed US citizens should need a work visa

Environmental Issues Should hire people to pick up garbage People should be walking only in the woods - no ATVs, helicopters or vehicles Should enforce no picking of other resources (ie. lobster mushrooms)

Permit Issues Permits are being sold to criminals Too many buyers Should be sarne price for everyone Permits should be sold on a weekly basis Should be more expensive for non-Nisga'a Where does permit money go? Elders should for pay permits