Okay. Thank you for the question.
I think from a first nations perspective, from a community that's on the ground, that's been there from time immemorial, what they tend to do is lay out, in terms of a traditional ecological study, some form of map that kind of shows where they have been, their special sites, and where there are activities they're engaging in. Then they start to build in other considerations.
I can share from my personal background from northern Manitoba what we did in terms of not actually developing a discrete map but having a relationship with the local forest management and the company to where they had a foreman from our community, we had subcontracting loggers, and they just kind of managed to move around operations outside of sensitive areas and go into areas that were okay, kind of building it on the ground on a management level.
Now it's progressed, in the year 2012, to where there are actual agreements. There are performance targets, with a legal technical expression of that now. And I think that's what should happen. You should build up from the community's connections to their traditional land base and then have them involved in a dialogue so that they know here are these opportunities, and here are these other opportunities.
In my neck of the woods, we have a gasping Tolko FMA, FMU. The guys are just barely holding on to their jobs as loggers, as silviculturists, as tree planters. There's talk of mines coming in. People are interested in that, but people are also still hunting, fishing, and trapping. They enjoy the spiritual sites out there, and the connectivity of the traditional land base.
So there you have it: a personal kind of perspective and an intellectual little journey, I guess, on how I think it should be played out. To do that work is, I will say, tremendously taxing on the community. It takes a lot of resources and a lot of good faith between the government units that are putting it together, right?