User:Kbruce01/Comanagement in Canada

Comanagement, also called community-based management, community-based resource management, cooperative management, joint management, and collaborative management, in the broadest terms refers to the administration of a particular place or resource being shared between multiple local and state management systems. Although comanagement encompasses a spectrum of power-sharing arrangements, in Canada, it usually refers to agreements between government agencies and representatives of Aboriginal peoples in Canada to jointly make land use and resource management decisions about a tract of government-controlled land (e.g. protected areas) or resource (e.g. fishery). Comanagement arrangements are typically negotiated with the objective to clarify decision-making and management roles, reduce management costs, and empower local communities/resource users.

"Co-management has come to mean institutional arrangements whereby governments and Aboriginal groups (and sometimes other parties) enter into formal agreements specifying their respective rights, powers, and obligations with reference to the management and allocation of resources in a particular area of crown lands and waters. "

Comanagement and Indigenous peoples
Co-management arrangements in Canada between Crown governments and Aboriginal groups have typically arisen out of comprehensive land claims settlements (modern treaties), crisis resolution processes (ie. over resource disputes), and more recently out of growing legal recognition of Indigenous rights through supreme court jurisprudence, such as the 1999 Sparrow ruling. Justice Berger's 1977 Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry led Parks Canada in 1979 to recognize "the potential for joint management [of parks] with Aboriginal peoples" and to sustain local Indigenous communities ability to continue traditional activities on the land. Indigenous groups also leverage co-management strategically as a tool to advance their self-determination. However, in the majority of cases, the Minister maintains unfettered veto rights, which is a source of contention among critics of comanagement.

Comanagement of Protected Areas in Canada
Parks Canada co-manages several Canadian national parks with local Aboriginals as the result of comprehensive land claims agreements. The first of these, Ivvavik National Park, in the Yukon and Inuvialuit Settlement Region, is comanaged as a result of provisions included in the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Likewise, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement established a cooperative management board that would administer the Torngat Mountains National Park in Labrador, created in 2005. In certain cases, such as the newer Thaidene Nëné National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories and Łutsël K’é Dene territory, alternative protected areas (e.g. Territorial Protected Areas) have been established in conjunction with national projects, which are often initiated by Indigenous partners. In contrast to the Northern context, Southern Canada, where socio-political complexities relating to treaty context and jurisdictional overlap persist, agreement-making between Aboriginal groups and Parks Canada Agency and Indigenous engagement in general, is less consistent. However, many of these Southern Parks are witnessing changes in the way the state engages with its Indigenous partners which have been effective to varying degrees.

Provincial and territorial protected areas also utilize co-management arrangements for their administration. Similar to their federal counterparts, these are frequently a result of provincial land claim settlements, most notably in Western and Northern Canada. For example, the establishment of Thunderbird’s Nest (T’iitsk’in Paawats) Protected Area in 2011, cooperatively managed between Uchucklesaht Tribe Government and BC Parks, was a stated provision within the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement.

A separate but related phenomenon is the joint management of parks by two governments without an Aboriginal partner. For example the federal government and a province can jointly manage a park such as the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park in Quebec, as can two provinces such as Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Comanagement of Resources
The West Coast of Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board is an example of co-management in fisheries. It consists of two members appointed by each of the Government of Canada, Province of British Columbia, the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, the regional districts, as well as eight non-government members jointly appointed by the levels of government from the wider community.

In addition to park establishment, modern land claim agreements mandate the creation of comanagement agreements or management entities that concern resource management, such as the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope) in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Comprehensive land claims of Yukon First Nations include the creation of local resource management bodies called Renewable Resource Councils, some of which serve as management entities on comanagement boards themselves.

Resource crises have also spawned the creation of comanagement boards. A well-studied example was the now defunct Ruby Range Sheep Steering Committee established in 1995 to assess Dall sheep population dynamics in Southwest Yukon. This committee was comprised of representatives from local Indigenous groups, territorial and federal governments, local outfitters, and environmental organizations and was responsible for advising the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board on decisions relating to the sheep herd.

References[edit]

 * 1) ^ "ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS Co-Management Definitions Guide" (PDF). Assembly of First Nations. Retrieved August 1, 2014.