Land Claims Agreement Research Articles

Co-management as an Ethical Space of Engagement: Prospects for Reconciliation in Vuntut National Park

Parks Canada’s commitments to reconciliation marks a significant shift in the governing paradigm of national parks, moving away from a colonial framework towards models that respect and elevate Indigenous forms of governance and knowledge systems. However, the extent to which a land claims–based co-management model, as the dominant mechanism of governance and engagement employed by Parks Canada, can serve as a vehicle for reconciliation is an open question. This paper endeavours to better understand the relational dynamics of co-management for their potential to advance reconciliation in national park settings. Using the lens of ethical space, we identify factors that either facilitate or impede relationship building between Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and Parks Canada in the co-management of Vuntut National Park. Insights from semi-structured interviews conducted in 2021 with 11 community members and park managers indicate that an evolving-management relationship is sustained through extensive community engagement and Parks Canada’s support for strengthening community connections to the land. By adopting an ethical space framework for analysis, we were able to highlight different conditions and elements necessary for a protected-area co-management arrangement to serve as a solid foundation for reconciliation. Our analysis also revealed various structural impediments to the establishment of an ethical space conducive to reconciliation, particularly in the context of co-management arrangements based on land-claims agreements. These challenges included: discrepancies in approaches to protected-area management between Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and Parks Canada, further complicated by the governance system employed by Parks Canada; issues of scale related to Parks Canada’s nested management structure, which affected relationship building between co-managers; financial constraints; and capacity constraints.

Introduction

In this issue, we present two articles in Lessons from Research. The first article Where exactly are all the First Nation Businesses? Interpreting the First Nation Business Environment in Yukon, 2008-2021 by Ken Coates and Greg Finnegan examines situation of First Nations Businesses in Yukon Territory. As one of the fastest growing economies in Canada and with one of the longest standing land claims agreement the Yukon First Nation Final Agreements, the expectation was that Indigenous business formation would be high. However, Indigenous businesses continue to be underrepresented in the Yukon economy. While there are data challenges in collecting data on Indigenous businesses, a complex picture of factors affecting Indigenous businesses emerges. Future business development will require co-ordinated efforts by First Nations, Territorial, and Canadian governments to address well.

Co-management at a crossroads in Canada: issues, opportunities, and emerging challenges in fisheries and marine contexts

Despite some progress, successful co-management in Canada has remained the exception rather than the rule, and especially so in jurisdictions not covered by a comprehensive land claims agreement. As such, our aim in this perspective is to identify and describe some of the primary factors that may impede more rapid progress toward successful co-management and to explore why they persist, with particular attention to fisheries and marine contexts. Specifically, we outline several institutional conditions that are likely to impede broader adoption of co-management approaches in Canada, including (1) antiquated and incomplete legislative arrangements; (2) a co-management policy vacuum that has not grappled with emerging expectations for co-governance; (3) relative absence of the knowledge co-production systems needed to create the precursors for successful co-management initiatives; and (4) financial and human resource capacity limitations. Such conditions must also be situated in a dynamic context that includes the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ongoing reconciliation processes, and shifts in the ownership and use of fisheries and other marine resources. We offer, finally, some suggestions to augment co-management efforts and ultimately achieve its promise.

Ten years of Inuit co-management: advancing research, resilience, and capacity in Nunatsiavut through fishery governance

Community-based approaches have risen to prominence in fisheries governance as decision makers have recognized the importance of local perspectives, and Indigenous Peoples have pursued their right to self-determination. In Canada, some Indigenous Peoples have pursued a formalized approach to co-management through land claim agreements. The Torngat Joint Fisheries Board (TJFB) is one such co-management arrangement that focuses on fisheries management in Nunatsiavut, a land claim area in northern Labrador, Canada. This research examines how the TJFB’s work contributes to fisheries governance in the region, and subsequently, how co-management is placed in terms of supporting greater self-determination for Indigenous peoples in resource governance. To understand the TJFB’s role, this research examined 12 years of recorded meeting minutes from 2010 to 2021, highlighting the activities in which the TJFB engages, and how those activities have changed over time. Inductive content analysis was used to understand the activities undertaken by the TJFB, highlighting their actions as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the co-management board in practice. The analysis found that the TJFB plays important roles in research, drafting recommendations, and public education, and that their activities support greater participation from fisheries stakeholders. Land claim–based co-management has a significant impact on how Indigenous sovereignty operates and how it will evolve into the future. The TJFB’s efforts to increase research capacity in the region, push focus towards the socio-cultural dimensions of fisheries management, and strengthen the political voice of the region represent an important move toward self-determination in Nunatsiavut’s commercial fisheries.

The Beaufort Sea Boundary Dispute: A Consideration of Rights of Inuit in Canada and the United States

Canada and the United States are involved in a long-standing dispute concerning the maritime boundary of the Beaufort Sea, located north of Canada and the State of Alaska. With rising global temperatures and the resulting interest in the potential newly accessible resources in the Beaufort Sea, there is increased political pressure to resolve the dispute within the next few years. A likely resolution of this dispute is that the two countries “agree to disagree” and enter into various co-management agreements governing the Beaufort Sea region. This article maintains that if an “agreement to disagree” is reached between Canada and the US regarding the Beaufort Sea boundary dispute and the result is various joint management of the region governing the protection and exploitation of its natural resources, then Inuit in Canada and the US have a right to negotiate such agreements as affected parties. This article considers the rights and entitlements of Inuit in Canada and the US to meaningfully participate in international negotiations regarding agreements governing the Beaufort Sea and its resources. This article analyzes the comparative legal rights of Inuit in Canada and US to share in the Beaufort Sea’s resources, protection, and management. The author discusses the relevant land claim agreements and legislative schemes, common law and constitutional rights in judicial precedents, international legal norms, and policy arguments that support Inuit communities’ right to sit at the table with Canada and the US to negotiate international agreements to resolve this dispute. The Arctic, including the Beaufort Sea, is the home of Inuit, and they possess legal rights to participate in shaping Arctic governance policy.

Coming full circle: a critical review of the historical changes in governance, nutrition and food security of Labrador Inuit between 1500 and 2005

ABSTRACT Labrador Inuit are an Indigenous People from northern Labrador, within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Prior to European contact, Labrador Inuit were self-reliant. However, historical relationships with Christian missionaries, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Government of Canada impacted their relationship with food, access to food, and the physical and social health of Labrador Inuit. This review is based on the stages of colonization. It uses a critical dietetics lens to examine the extrinsic causes of nutrition and food security issues that resulted from colonization, and describes the interventions implemented to address them. Moreover, the review shows the resilience and adaptability of Labrador Inuit as they came full circle from self-sufficient Labrador Inuit in the 1500s, to sign the first Inuit land claim agreement in Canada and form the Nunatsiavut Government in 2005.

Canadian and Russian Fisheries Management in the Arctic: Complexities, Commonalities and Contrasts

This article reviews and compares Canadian and Russian approaches to Arctic fisheries management through a three-part format. First, the complex array of laws and policies applicable to Arctic fisheries is described for each country. How Canada and Russia have addressed international fishery issues is also highlighted, including their participation in the 2018 Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement. Second, commonalities in fisheries governance approaches are summarized, including national commitments to implement precautionary and ecosystem approaches. Finally, contrasts in Arctic fisheries management are discussed. Major differences include the greater devolution of management responsibilities by Canada to Indigenous communities through land-claim agreements and co-management arrangements and Russia’s greater success in formalizing bilateral fisheries management arrangements with its neighbours.

Perils of an open Arctic

Perils of an open Arctic

The Impact of Self-Government, Comprehensive Land Claims, and Opt-In Arrangements on Income Inequality in Indigenous Communities in Canada

In Canada, self-government agreements, comprehensive land claims agreements, and opt-in arrangements allow Indigenous groups to govern their internal affairs and assume greater responsibility and control over the decision-making that affects their communities. We use difference-in-difference models to measure the impact of such agreements on average income and income inequality in Indigenous communities at the community level. In comparison with earlier work, we additionally use data from the 2016 Census. Our results suggest that comprehensive land claims agreements increase community-level average (log) household incomes by more than C$10 thousand (0.25 log points). Attainment of other agreement types does not increase community-level average incomes. Communities that attain a self-government agreement or an opt-in arrangement related to land management see a decrease in the Gini coefficient for income inequality of 2.0 to 3.5 percentage points. Standalone comprehensive land claims agreements are associated with a smaller decrease of 1.2 percentage points. We also study intergroup inequality and find that an opt-in arrangement increases within-community income disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous households.

Equitable Allocations in Northern Fisheries: Bridging the Divide for Labrador Inuit

Canada has undertaken commitments to recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples in fisheries through policies and agreements, including Integrated Fishery Management Plans, the Reconciliation Strategy, and Land Claim Agreements (LCAs). In addition to recognizing rights, these commitments were intended to respect geographic adjacency principles, to enhance the economic viability of Indigenous communities, and to be reflective of community dependence on marine resources. We examined the determinants of quota allocations in commercial fisheries involving Nunatsiavut, Northern Labrador, the first self-governing region for the Inuit peoples in Canada. It has been argued that current fishery allocations for Nunatsiavut Inuit have not satisfied federal commitments to recognize Indigenous rights. Indicators that measure equity in commercial allocations for the turbot or Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) and northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis)fisheries were identified and assessed. In these two cases, historical allocations continue to predominate for allocations based upon equity or other social or economic considerations. We illustrate equity-enhancing changes in the quota distribution under scenarios of different levels of inequality aversion, and we make qualitative assessments of the effects of these allocations to Nunatsiavut for socioeconomic welfare. This approach could benefit fisheries governance in Northern Labrador, where federal commitments to equity objectives continue to be endorsed but have not yet been integrated fully into quota allocations.

Modern Treaty Making and the Limits of the Law

In recent years, several Australian states have formally committed to treaty negotiations with the First Peoples whose traditional lands they claim. The emerging treaty processes in Australia build on both the comprehensive land claim agreements currently under negotiation in Canada, as well as the historic treaties struck between First Peoples and colonial powers in North America and Aotearoa New Zealand. Parties engaged in these negotiations appropriately view treaties as mechanisms through which First Peoples and non-Indigenous political communities can settle ongoing tensions surrounding political autonomy, citizenship, and pluralism. However, it is not clear whether these processes can produce such outcomes. In this paper, we contend that although fairer processes of negotiation may avoid some of the problems of historic treaties, modern treaty making in Canada, Australia, and elsewhere, will fail to meet the parties’ aspirations unless greater attention is paid to building relational characteristics. We do so by outlining the promises and perils in modern treaty making with an eye towards understanding the limits of the law.

Indigenous employees’ perceptions of the strategies used by mining employers to promote their recruitment, integration and retention

Members of Indigenous communities want to improve their socio-economic status. While many are willing to participate in the mining industry, they face multiple barriers to employment. The purpose of this research was to study Indigenous employees’ perceptions of the strategies used by Canadian mining employers to promote their recruitment, integration and retention. Semi-structured interviews with 43 Anishnaabeg, Crees and Inuit from communities near mining projects in Quebec and Nunavut showed that to be effective, employability programs required close collaboration between governments, Indigenous communities and industry. Liaison, work readiness, site readiness, mentorship, career progression and language training programs were said to promote the recruitment, integration and retention of Indigenous workers. Facilities and activities valuing Indigenous cultures, a critical mass of Indigenous employees, and quality work relationships were also considered to favor Indigenous employment within mining companies. Cree and Inuit perceptions of the factors promoting their recruitment, integration and retention in the mining industry were similar to those of their employers, while Anishnaabeg rather considered that employers were not making enough efforts. The difference might be explained by the fact that Anishnaabeg have yet to conclude a land claim agreement which would put a legal incentive on companies to implement employability programs.

Modern treaty making and the limits of the law

In recent years, several Australian states have formally committed to treaty negotiations with the First Peoples whose traditional lands they claim. The emerging treaty processes in Australia build on both the comprehensive land claim agreements currently under negotiation in Canada as well as the historic treaties struck between First Peoples and colonial powers in North America and Aotearoa / New Zealand. Parties engaged in these negotiations appropriately view treaties as mechanisms through which First Peoples and non-Indigenous political communities can settle ongoing tensions surrounding political autonomy, citizenship, and pluralism. However, it is not clear whether these processes can produce such outcomes. In this article, we contend that, although fairer processes of negotiation may avoid some of the problems of historic treaties, modern treaty making in Canada, Australia, and elsewhere will fail to meet the parties’ aspirations unless greater attention is paid to building relational characteristics. We do so by outlining the promises and perils in modern treaty making with an eye toward understanding the limits of the law.

A Pesquisa em Ciência Política e os Povos Indígenas no Canadá: uma entrevista com Christopher Alcantara

Christopher Alcantara is a professor of political science at Western University in London, Canada, and has dedicated himself to the study of indigenous peoples and Canadian indigenous politics from this disciplinary field. His book Negotiating the Deal: Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements in Canada, published by the University of Toronto Press in 2013, received several major awards and was a reference for researchers in the field. In this interview, we sought to present this important author of the field of Canadian political science to the Brazilian academic community, reviewing the main arguments of his two most recent books. Alcantara discusses the challenges of doing scientific research that is, at the same time, decolonial and emancipatory, in addition to bringing concrete benefits to the indigenous communities involved. Finally, the researcher gives advice to those who want to start their studies on this topic of research and do not know where to start. With this interview, we aim to strengthen the academic exchange of ideas and research methodologies between Brazil and Canada, instigating the interest of undergraduate and graduate students and students for issues related to the indigenous issue in both countries.

Her Majesty’s Ships Erebus and Terror and the Intersection of Legal Norms

This article examines three main bodies of law that apply to the discovery of Her Majesty’s Ships Erebus and Terror. These ships set sail from England in 1845, became trapped in ice in what is now the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and were not re-discovered until 2014 and 2016. Public international law is relevant to the inquiry insofar as this body of law deals with immunity claims with respect to warships and state owned ships and property, and also establishes the rights of the coastal state with respect to the various maritime zones and activities within those zones. The UNESCO Convention of 2001 on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage is also relevant when considering the rights and obligations of states with respect to sunken vessels. In addition to the general body of public international law, the article also examines three bilateral agreements between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Canada with respect to the wrecks. These agreements—part treaty, part private law arrangements—form a second specialized body of relevant law. The final part of the paper examines how the status of the vessels is also governed by the terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement between Canada and the Inuit of Nunavut, the source of the third body of relevant laws.

Inuit, namiipita? Climate Change Research and Policy: Beyond Canada’s Diversity and Equity Problem

As an Inuk, born and raised in Iqaluit and academically trained in southern Canada, I start my thoughts here with two notable questions that Mary Simon (2017), Minister Bennett’s Special Representative in the cross-sectoral engagement for the new Arctic Policy Framework, kept returning to:Why, in spite of substantive progress over the past 40 years, including remarkable achievements such as land claims agreements, Constitutional inclusion and precedent-setting court rulings, does the Arctic continue to exhibit among the worst national social indicators for basic wellness?Why, with all the hard-earned tools of empowerment, do many individuals and families not feel empowered and healthy?In the same line of inquiry, I ask: Inuit, namiipita? Why, in spite of so much research and policy focus on Arctic climate change, are we Inuit still consultants or fillers in an otherwise Western-driven enterprise to “monitor” climate developments in Inuit Nunangat? This is not to polarize North and South in the otherwise existential task we all have to tackle―climate change. Rather, I want to highlight that the story of climate change research and policy in Canada has so far been the familiar story of marginalization of Inuit in the national narrative; and that it is in Canada’s―indeed humanity’s―interests to have Inuit participate equally and with a sense of utmost urgency in the research and decision-making processes related to the Arctic. It goes beyond the diversity and equity rationale or the moral duty of reconciliation: we simply cannot afford to act differently. ........ continued

Co-management of Traditional Foods: Opportunities and Limitations for Food Security in Northern First Nation Communities

Traditional foods that First Nations peoples harvest or gather from the land remain critically important for achieving and sustaining food security for many communities. In Canada’s North, land claim agreements include provisions for First Nations to participate in the governance of their traditional territories, including the co-management of important traditional (wild-harvested) food species. Because such agreements only specify the broad contours of co-management governance, their actual functioning evolves out of a complex interplay among the co-managing organizations over the course of time. This paper aims to deepen our understanding of how First Nations communities can enhance food security as participants in co-management. Our study connects research on food security with research on co-management and is the first to analyze how First Nations can improve their food security by influencing decision-making that affects traditional foods through co-management arrangements. Following a succinct review of the Indigenous food security and co-management literatures, we analyze the experiences of Kluane First Nation in enhancing community food security through the co-management of its traditional territory with Yukon Government and Parks Canada, interpreting the data in light of the theories and evidences offered by research on co-management. The analysis of data collected from semi-structured interviews and from First Nations and government resources shows that, while the co-management system is imperfect, it does offer a mechanism through which First Nations can exert influence on decisions that affect their food security. The three key themes emerging from the excerpts confirm the importance of co-management as an evolutionary and long-term process, in which trust- and relationship-building are ongoing activities that are fundamental to beneficial collaboration involving the sharing of information and power. The analysis also highlights the role of context, or situational factors, in facilitating or hindering collaboration.

Diversions, distractions, and privileges: consultation and the governance of mining in Nunavut

In the context of the growing global drive for mineral resources, Canada’s northern territories have become a focal point for the rapid expansion of mineral extraction. Occurring within the terms of Canada’s largest Indigenous land claim, the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, the negotiation of Baffinland’s Mary River Mine provides a case study of the dynamics of consultation within communities impacted by large-scale mining projects. Using Freudenburg’s 2005 “privileged accounts” framework, our findings elucidate the power dynamics in the consultation processes between multinational mining corporations and Indigenous communities.

“Seeing Water Like a State?”: Indigenous water governance through Yukon First Nation Self-Government Agreements

Yukon First Nations and the waters within their traditional territories face a variety of socio-political and environmental pressures including the effects of historical and ongoing settler colonialism, global environmental change and mining activity. These communities are in the process of implementing Self-Government and Modern land claim agreements, which contain powerful acknowledgements of Indigenous rights and authorities, including the right to unaltered “water quality, quantity and rate of flow” on Settlement lands (∼10 percent of their traditional territories). Self-governing Yukon First Nations have real, although limited, legal authorities on Settlement Lands including the ability to enact laws that supersede territorial legislation. Through research conducted in partnership with four Yukon First Nations (Carcross/Tagish, Kluane, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in and White River First Nations), I examine how these Indigenous governments are engaging the authorities acknowledged in Modern Land Claim and Self-Government Agreements to assert their rights and responsibilities to water as a more-than-human relation. In particular, I analyze the potential for the creation of legislation pertaining to water on Settlement Land. I engage with critical Indigenous scholarship to examine the challenges facing these communities and to reveal emerging approaches to Indigenous water governance. More specifically, I analyze the “state-like” bureaucracies that First Nations must develop to assert their sovereignty in this context. While these forms of governance are critiqued for bearing little resemblance to traditional forms of governance, I demonstrate how First Nations exercise self-determination as they strategically navigate these opportunities in order to protect water in a manner, they deem consistent with the values, principles and relationships of Indigenous water governance.

Incomplete Sovereigns: Unpacking Patterns of Indigenous Self-Governance in the United States and Canada

ABSTRACT In the early 1970s, both the Canadian and United States federal governments introduced modern land claim agreements as a first step forward in the states’ recognition of Indigenous goals for self-determination. Since then, both the United States and Canadian federal governments have incrementally expanded their recognition of Indigenous rights to include Indigenous goals for political self-determination. Yet, despite the fact that both countries began implementing broadly similar policies at approximately the same time, the degree to which Indigenous political and economic self-determination has been realized varies considerably both within and between the two countries. The variation in Indigenous self-governing power and authority suggests that the policy shift towards Indigenous self-determination is incomplete and has faced important barriers to implementation. This paper investigates two key aspects of this variation in Indigenous self-determination in the United States and Canada: (1) institutional histories embedded in geography, and (2) the temporal nature of policy frameworks. I argue that the full realization of Indigenous self-determination has been shaped in different ways and, ultimately, is limited by the intersection of embedded institutional legacies and federal political dynamics.