Why It Matters
Federal agencies manage public lands and waters, including national forests and parks, that sit on tribal ancestral territories. For years, those agencies exercised authority over these lands largely unilaterally.
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, published July 31, examines what federal agencies and tribes have actually learned from implementing shared decision-making agreements, or formal arrangements under which tribes provide substantive input on federal natural and cultural resource management decisions over many years.
The Big Picture
The relevant federal agencies span three departments: Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior, with subcomponents including the U.S. Forest Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service.
GAO identified five lessons learned from implementation of these agreements and developed related key questions for agencies and tribes to use when building or running them. The central question the report implicitly raises is whether federal agencies can sustain genuine collaboration with tribes or whether these agreements become procedural formalities.
One lesson is based on developing mutual understanding and trust, illustrating what separates functioning agreements from ceremonial ones. Tribal officials reported that agency staff met with them in person, kept open minds, and treated them with respect. That encouraged candid conversations and helped both sides understand each other's perspectives. The implication is direct: procedural design alone does not make collaboration work.
These findings are a follow-up to a January 2026 report that examined factors affecting the development of shared decision-making agreements. The current report draws on interviews conducted for that earlier study, analyzing statements specifically related to implementation.
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article