Three submissions comment on the assessment of impacts on First Nations in the Socio-Economic Analysis. One submission contends that the projected impacts of a reduced harvest level on First Nations are disproportionate to the impacts projected for non-native communities. It contends the impact has been overestimated, as the number of First Nations people involved in the workforce is small compared to the total community population. It further suggests the impact of harvesting on the environment and traditional use of the forests is more significant to the Nlaka’pamux Nation than jobs that may be lost with a reduction in cut.
Other submissions claim that the distribution of First Nations should have been considered in the impact assessment. One First Nation criticizes the analysis for addressing all three nations—St'at'imc, Shuswap and Nlaka’pamux—as a single entity, while the communities of Lytton, Lillooet and Goldbridge are assessed separately. Submissions suggest that few economic benefits from forestry activities will be derived by Shuswap or Nlaka’pamux people in the future because the majority of available timber is located in St'at'imc territory.
Another submission criticizes the analysis for considering only the monetary value of the forest resource. The submission asserts traditional activities such as hunting, fishing and berry picking do not involve monetary exchange and are not adequately reflected in the analysis. It recommends a more comprehensive analysis of these activities be undertaken in consultation with First Nations communities.
