Traditional Knowledge In Practice

Northern organizations, governments, and governments-in-waiting have been formally and informally attempting to incorporate "traditional knowledge" into policy deliberations for some time. A public debate about this practice began in fall 1996, when Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard published criticisms of the Government of the Northwest Territories" (GNWT) Traditional Knowledge Policy and of the requirement that traditional knowledge be incorporated into environmental assessments. Widdowson was at the time a contract employee of the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development (Howard and Widdowson, 1996). As the controversy developed, she was suspended for one week as punishment for her public criticism of government policy. In the Canadian parliamentary tradition, public servants do not have the right to publicly disagree with the policies they are hired to implement. Employees who find themselves in fundamental disagreement with the decisions of elected officials have two options: they may work from within to bring about a change of policy; or, failing this, they must resign. As private citizens, they may - and should - criticize government policy freely. Widdowson should have resigned before speaking publicly, but at least her action stimulated public discussion of some very important questions (GNWT, 1993; Howard and Widdowson, 1996; Berkes and Henley, 1997; Howard and Widdowson, 1997; Laghi, 1997; Stevenson, 1997). The GNWT has adopted what is probably the first formal traditional knowledge policy in Canada, in an attempt to improve democratic representation in the North by moving the policies and practices of territorial government closer to reflecting the values and needs of all northern residents. The Traditional Knowledge Policy is only one aspect of this endeavour, but it is a potentially far-reaching one that deserves intelligent discussion and debate. ..

Canadian Contradictions: Forty Years of Northern Political Development

Postwar northern political history is interpreted as a compressed reiteration of older patterns of Canadian development. It is argued that Native people and northerners have reacted to two contradictory tendencies in the Canadian constitutional tradition: liberal individualism and Tory top-down pragmatism. The general argument is that understanding current northern debates in this way exposes some grounds for long-term optimism about aboriginal and territorial self-government.Key words: territorial political development, federal northern administration On interprète l'histoire politique du Nord depuis la dernière guerre comme la répétition, en accéléré, des schémas antérieurs de développement du Canada. L'auteur soutient que les indigènes et les habitants du Nord ont réagi à deux tendances contradictoires dans la tradition constitutionnelle du Canada, à savoir l'individualisme des libéraux et le pragmatisme des conservateurs qui s'exerçait de haut en bas. L'idée générale est de démontrer qu'à partir de cette ligne de pensée, la compréhension des débats actuels sur le Nord débouche sur un optimisme à long terme quant à un auto-gouvernement aborigène et territorial. Mots clés : développement politique territorial, administration fédérale du Nor

A Time To Celebrate

On April 1, 1999 the map of Canada will change forever. The Northwest Territories will be divided to create Nunavut Territory and the new Northwest Territories in the west. The two new territories are the first new jurisdictions to be created in Canada since Newfoundland joined Confederation half a century ago - and they represent the first change to the map of Canada to result from Aboriginal peoples' political activism. It is a time for celebration and for earnest renewal of efforts to build democratic northern governments that truly reflect the best of the founding traditions of the region. ..

Beyond the Berger Inquiry: Can Extractive Resource Development Help the Sustainability of Canada’s Arctic Communities?

 The four decades since the Berger Inquiry have produced a large body of research demonstrating the positive and negative impacts of resource development on northern communities. However, little independent research has aimed to yield an understanding of how best to manage the impacts of resource development and to harness its benefits in ways that can promote long-term sustainable development. This question was the impetus for the Resources and Sustainable Development in the Arctic (ReSDA) research project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada in 2011. Representing a network of researchers, community members and organizations, ReSDA researchers conducted a series of analyses that focused on what was needed to ensure that northern communities received more benefits from resource development and potential negative impacts were mitigated. Overall, the analyses highlight the serious gaps that remain in our ability to ensure that resource development projects improve the sustainability of Arctic communities. These gaps include a proper understanding of cumulative impacts, the ability of communities to adequately participate in new regulatory processes, the non-economic aspects of well-being, the effects of impact and benefit agreements and new financial benefits, and new mitigation activities. Pendant les quatre décennies qui ont suivi l’enquête Berger, de nombreuses recherches ont été effectuées pour montrer les incidences positives et négatives de la mise en valeur des ressources sur les collectivités nordiques. Cependant, peu de recherches indépendantes ont tâché de comprendre les meilleures façons de gérer les incidences de la mise en valeur des ressources et d’exploiter leurs retombées de sorte à favoriser le développement durable à long terme. Cette question a servi de fondement au projet de recherche sur les ressources et le développement durable dans l’Arctique (Resources and Sustainable Development in the Arctic, ou ReSDA) financé par le Conseil de recherche en sciences humaines du Canada en 2011. Les chercheurs du ReSDA représentaient un réseau de chercheurs, de membres de la communauté et d’organismes. Ils ont réalisé une série d’analyses axées sur les éléments nécessaires pour que les collectivités du Nord aient droit à plus d’avantages découlant de la mise en valeur des ressources et pour atténuer les incidences négatives potentielles. Dans l’ensemble, les analyses mettent en évidence les sérieux écarts à combler pour que les projets de mise en valeur des ressources améliorent la durabilité des collectivités de l’Arctique. Ces écarts comprennent la bonne compréhension des incidences cumulatives, l’aptitude des collectivités à participer adéquatement aux nouveaux processus réglementaires, les aspects non économiques du bien-être, les effets des ententes sur les retombées et les incidences, les nouvelles retombées financières de même que les nouvelles activités d’atténuation

Beyond the Berger Inquiry: Can extractive resource development help the sustainability of Canada’s arctic communities?

The four decades since the Berger Inquiry have produced a large body of research demonstrating the positive and negative impacts of resource development on northern communities. However, little independent research has aimed to yield an understanding of how best to manage the impacts of resource development and to harness its benefits in ways that can promote long-term sustainable development. This question was the impetus for the Resources and Sustainable Development in the Arctic (ReSDA) research project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada in 2011. Representing a network of researchers, community members and organizations, ReSDA researchers conducted a series of analyses that focused on what was needed to ensure that northern communities received more benefits from resource development and potential negative impacts were mitigated. Overall, the analyses highlight the serious gaps that remain in our ability to ensure that resource development projects improve the sustainability of Arctic communities. These gaps include a proper understanding of cumulative impacts, the ability of communities to adequately participate in new regulatory processes, the non-economic aspects of well-being, the effects of impact and benefit agreements and new financial benefits, and new mitigation activities