AFN and David Suzuki Foundation report assesses importance of caribou

How much is a caribou worth? The question could be considered in terms of the food the animal provides to one’s family, Elders and community. Then there is the value of the cured hide, or the way that ancestors used the bones as arrowheads, fishhooks and needles for netting snowshoes. But how much are all the caribou worth? How important is the continuing, healthy existence of the species to the Eeyouch of Eeyou Istchee and other Indigenous peoples?

That difficult question is one that the David Suzuki Foundation and the Assembly of First Nations are attempting to address with their new report, The Cultural and Ecological Value of Boreal Woodland Caribou and Habitat, which was completed with research by the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Research.

“Decision-makers in Canada too often look at nature as a resource to exploit and rarely calculate the broad range of socio-economic values for nearby residents and communities,” David Suzuki stated in a press release. “It is time for Canada to begin calculating the true value of nature – especially the immense cultural, spiritual and ecological values.”

Noting that over 300 Indigenous nations live in territories that contain caribou habitat, AFN National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo said, “It is important that these communities are consulted on the development and implementation of any recovery strategies…. First Nations place great emphasis on the integration of traditional values and community knowledge in all recovery stages under the Species at Risk Act.”

Reached at the David Suzuki Foundation office in Toronto, Biodiversity Policy Analyst Rachel Plotkin said the organization is calling upon government to expand the way it calculates the value of crown land to include the costs protecting and maintaining the caribou’s boreal forest habitat. Plotkin noted that government usually only considers the economic value of impact to industry.

In other words, she said, “Either what could industry do with this forest in terms of monetary value for resource extraction, or what is industry going to lose if it can’t access the forest. What we’re calling on government to do is expand this type of assessment so that [it includes both] cultural values and the ecological values that are provided by a healthy, functioning ecosystem.”

Cultural values include the value caribou provide to different First Nations, said Plotkin, including reciprocity, self-sufficiency, the nourishment of healthy country food and the spiritual importance of being on the land. Ecological values include issues like flood control, carbon sequestration, and air and water purification.

Though the report refers to the 2002 Species at Risk Act (SARA), designed to help Canada meet commitments under the International Convention on Biological Diversity, Plotkin said that the report doesn’t pertain only to those species indicated as being at risk in that document. The George River caribou herd, which at times migrates through Eeyou Istchee, is in drastic decline yet is not considered at risk under SARA.

“When government is about to embark on planning, usually they have a narrow framework looking at what economic impacts are going to be,” Plotkin observed.

Plotkin said the report intends to broaden public evaluations of natural habitats beyond token attempts at “engaging” Indigenous nations so that they get a portion of the economic proceeds from development.

“How do we engage First Nations so that they can meaningfully be at the table and ensure their ecological security needs are met?” she asked. “That ecosystems remain healthy in order to support the wildlife systems on which First Nations communities rely?”

The report encourages a complete overhaul in assessment criteria of boreal forest habitats. It recommends including a greater variety of values than those that strictly serve the interests of resource-extraction industries.

“We’re trying to change the framework in terms of what’s considered,” Plotkin said. “There are more than economic values that should come into play when making land-use decisions.”