46 research outputs found
Gender and Resource Co-Management in Northern Canada
An inventory of the nominal representation of men and women on northern co-management boards in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut identified a total of 34 co-management boards. Of their total of 210 members, 176 (84%) were males and 34 (16%) were females. Nine boards were composed exclusively of men, and 18 boards had only a single female representative. The land and resource management regimes created through the settlement of comprehensive land claims have afforded Aboriginal governments equitable representation in co-management but have not promoted gender equity in board membership.Lâinventaire de la reprĂ©sentation nominale dâhommes et de femmes faisant partie de conseils de cogestion dans le Nord, plus prĂ©cisĂ©ment au Yukon, dans les Territoires du Nord-Ouest et au Nunavut, a permis de rĂ©pertorier 34 conseils de cogestion au total. En tout, ces conseils comprenaient 210 membres, dont 176 (84 %) Ă©taient des hommes et 34 (16 %) Ă©taient des femmes. Neuf conseils Ă©taient exclusivement composĂ©s dâhommes et 18 conseils ne comptaient quâune seule femme. Les rĂ©gimes de gestion des ressources et des terres dĂ©coulant du rĂšglement dâimportantes revendications territoriales ont permis une reprĂ©sentation Ă©quitable sur le plan de la cogestion des gouvernements autochtones, mais nâont pas fait valoir lâĂ©quitĂ© entre les sexes au sein des conseils de cogestion
Northern Exposure: Peoples, Powers and Prospects in Canada's North, edited by Frances Abele, Thomas J. Courchene, F. Leslie Seidle and Frances St-Hilaire
A Nexus Approach to Water, Energy, and Food Security in Northern Canada
Residents of northern Canada experience high rates of water, energy, and food (WEF) insecurity relative to the national average. Historically, WEF systems have been treated independently with little policy or institutional coordination occurring between sectors. This paper presents the results of a WEF nexus analysis for northern Canada. We assess the positive and negative interactions between the WEF sectors that could facilitate or impede the attainment of WEF-related sustainable development goals. Out of 210 pair-wise interactions, 87% were found to be synergistic of some magnitude, meaning that efforts to address insecurity in one WEF sector will have positive spillover effects toward the others. With synergies significantly outweighing trade-offs, opportunities exist to simultaneously address WEF insecurities through mutually beneficial actions that capitalize on and promote synergetic policies.Comparativement Ă la moyenne nationale, les habitants du Nord canadien connaissent des taux Ă©levĂ©s dâinsĂ©curitĂ© en matiĂšre dâeau, dâĂ©nergie et dâalimentation (EEA). Par le passĂ©, les rĂ©seaux dâEEA Ă©taient traitĂ©s de maniĂšre indĂ©pendante, sans trop de coordination politique ou institutionnelle entre les divers secteurs. Cet article prĂ©sente les rĂ©sultats de lâanalyse du nexus EEA dans le Nord canadien. Nous Ă©valuons les interactions positives et nĂ©gatives entre les secteurs de lâEEA susceptibles de favoriser lâatteinte dâobjectifs de dĂ©veloppement durable en matiĂšre dâEEA ou dây nuire. Parmi les 210 interactions par paires, 87 % Ă©taient considĂ©rĂ©es comme synergiques dans une certaine mesure, ce qui signifie que les efforts dĂ©ployĂ©s pour contrer lâinsĂ©curitĂ© dans un secteur de lâEEA auront des retombĂ©es positives sur les autres. Puisque les synergies lâemportent considĂ©rablement sur les compromis, il serait possible de contrer simultanĂ©ment les insĂ©curitĂ©s en matiĂšre dâEEA par le biais dâactions mutuellement bĂ©nĂ©fiques renforçant et favorisant les politiques synergiques
Rethinking Devolution: Challenges for Aboriginal Resource Management in the Yukon Territory
After decades of state administration, indigenous peoples throughout the world are now succeeding, to varying degrees, in the reimplementation of self-governing institutions and administrative processes. This reorientation has been most observable in the context of natural resource management, where a major policy trend has been to devolve state authority and administrative responsibility directly to local levels. While the language of devolution and local control now permeates localâstate interaction, in many cases the new institutions that have been created following devolution have little resemblance to indigenous forms of management. In this article, we present some of the institutional and ideological factors that continue to influence the way in which lands and resources are managed by First Nations in the Yukon Territory of Canada. In doing so, we identify the difficulties of applying indigenous cultural ideals into a management process that continues to be derived from non- indigenous values and principles
Gender, Decision Making, and Natural Resource Co-management in Yukon
Across the Canadian North, resource co-management has become a central institution for the management of natural resources. Although many multidisciplinary studies have examined the various social and political dimensions that influence the effectiveness of resource co-management, little has been done to understand how gender might affect collaboration and decision making. This gap is particularly evident in the northern Canadian context, where women make up 16% of all current co-management board members. This study examines the relationship between gender and decision making, drawing on the experiences of those involved in co-management boards in Yukon. Our findings indicate that the representation of women within these institutions is important for establishing a holistic decision-making process and a positive institutional culture that facilitates effective decision making. While there were many different experiences with gender, co-management, and decision making, it was generally agreed that male and female board members had equal opportunities to participate in board decision making. Nonetheless, barriers remain that prevent board members from feeling comfortable acting upon these opportunities. These barriers to participation were experienced by men and women in distinct ways. Institutional level barriersâcases where womenâs skills and knowledge were considered irrelevant to co-management, where their opinions lacked standing within decision makingâwill be the most challenging for co-management boards to address in regard to effective decision making. à lâĂ©chelle du Nord canadien, la cogestion des ressources est dorĂ©navant une institution centrale pour assurer la gestion des ressources naturelles. De nombreuses Ă©tudes disciplinaires se sont penchĂ©es sur les dimensions sociopolitiques qui influent sur la cogestion des ressources. Cependant, peu dâĂ©tudes ont Ă©tĂ© rĂ©alisĂ©es pour comprendre en quoi le sexe de la personne exerce une influence sur la collaboration et la prise de dĂ©cisions. Cet Ă©cart est particuliĂšrement Ă©vident dans le contexte du Nord canadien, oĂč les femmes reprĂ©sentent 16 % de tous les membres de conseils dâadministration actuels en cogestion. Cette Ă©tude examine le lien qui existe entre le sexe de la personne et la prise de dĂ©cisions. Elle sâappuie sur lâexpĂ©rience de personnes qui font partie de conseils de cogestion au Yukon. Nos constatations laissent croire que la reprĂ©sentation des femmes au sein de ces institutions revĂȘt de lâimportance dans la crĂ©ation dâun processus de prise de dĂ©cisions holistiques et dâune culture institutionnelle positive favorisant la prise de dĂ©cisions efficaces. Bien que lâexpĂ©rience diffĂ©rait selon le sexe des personnes, la cogestion et la prise de dĂ©cisions, on a gĂ©nĂ©ralement constatĂ© que les membres de conseils de sexe masculin ou de sexe fĂ©minin avaient la possibilitĂ© de participer de maniĂšre Ă©gale Ă la prise de dĂ©cisions des conseils. NĂ©anmoins, il reste des obstacles qui empĂȘchent les membres de conseils de se sentir Ă lâaise lorsque vient le temps de saisir ces possibilitĂ©s. Ces obstacles Ă la participation Ă©taient vus de maniĂšres distinctes par les hommes et par les femmes. Les obstacles de niveau institutionnel â lorsque les compĂ©tences et les connaissances des femmes Ă©taient considĂ©rĂ©es comme non pertinentes en matiĂšre de cogestion et lorsque leurs opinions manquaient de poids dans le cadre de la prise de dĂ©cisions â seront les obstacles les plus difficiles Ă surmonter pour les conseils de cogestion en vue de la prise de dĂ©cisions efficaces
The Power and Peril of âVulnerabilityâ: Approaching Community Labels with Caution in Climate Change Research
Indigenous communities in the Arctic have become increasingly characterized as âvulnerableâ in the context of climate change research. We question the use and application of this term in light of the potential consequences it may bring for indigenous peoples. First, the label âvulnerableâ is often generated by those who are more or less unfamiliar with the complexities of local culture, economies, and capabilities. Second, we are concerned that such labels can generate misguided actions and policy responses built on how peoples and places come to be seen and understood by others. Third, the label âvulnerableâ has the potential to shape how northern indigenous peoples come to see themselves as they construct their own identitiesâand identifying themselves as vulnerable may ultimately hinder their efforts to gain greater autonomy over their own affairs. As researchers become more engaged in the social dimensions of climate-change research, we encourage more careful and critical attention to the power and potential peril of community labels.Les communautĂ©s indigĂšnes de lâArctique sont de plus en plus souvent caractĂ©risĂ©es de « vulnĂ©rables » dans le contexte de la recherche sur le changement climatique. Nous mettons en doute lâutilisation et lâapplication de ce terme Ă la lumiĂšre des consĂ©quences Ă©ventuelles quâil risque dâapporter aux peuples indigĂšnes. PremiĂšrement, lâĂ©tiquette « vulnĂ©rable » est souvent apposĂ©e par des personnes qui sont plus ou moins au courant des complexitĂ©s de la culture, des Ă©conomies et des capacitĂ©s locales. DeuxiĂšmement, nous nous inquiĂ©tons du fait que ces Ă©tiquettes peuvent se traduire par des mesures malavisĂ©es de mĂȘme que par des politiques qui tiennent compte de la maniĂšre dont les peuples et les lieux sont perçus et compris par les autres. TroisiĂšmement, lâĂ©tiquette « vulnĂ©rable » a la possibilitĂ© de dĂ©terminer la façon dont les peuples indigĂšnes du Nord se voient quand vient le temps de dĂ©finir leur propre identitĂ©, sans compter que le fait de sâidentifier comme vulnĂ©rables pourrait finir par nuire Ă leurs efforts dâobtention dâune plus grande autonomie Ă lâĂ©gard de leurs propres affaires. Au fur et Ă mesure que les chercheurs se penchent davantage sur les dimensions sociales de la recherche sur le changement climatique, nous incitons les gens Ă faire sĂ©rieusement plus attention au pouvoir et aux dangers susceptibles de dĂ©couler de lâapposition dâĂ©tiquettes sur les communautĂ©s
Beyond the Berger Inquiry: Can Extractive Resource Development Help the Sustainability of Canadaâs 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 dĂ©cennies qui ont suivi lâenquĂȘte Berger, de nombreuses recherches ont Ă©tĂ© effectuĂ©es pour montrer les incidences positives et nĂ©gatives de la mise en valeur des ressources sur les collectivitĂ©s nordiques. Cependant, peu de recherches indĂ©pendantes ont tĂąchĂ© de comprendre les meilleures façons de gĂ©rer les incidences de la mise en valeur des ressources et dâexploiter leurs retombĂ©es de sorte Ă favoriser le dĂ©veloppement durable Ă long terme. Cette question a servi de fondement au projet de recherche sur les ressources et le dĂ©veloppement durable dans lâArctique (Resources and Sustainable Development in the Arctic, ou ReSDA) financĂ© par le Conseil de recherche en sciences humaines du Canada en 2011. Les chercheurs du ReSDA reprĂ©sentaient un rĂ©seau de chercheurs, de membres de la communautĂ© et dâorganismes. Ils ont rĂ©alisĂ© une sĂ©rie dâanalyses axĂ©es sur les Ă©lĂ©ments nĂ©cessaires pour que les collectivitĂ©s du Nord aient droit Ă plus dâavantages dĂ©coulant de la mise en valeur des ressources et pour attĂ©nuer les incidences nĂ©gatives potentielles. Dans lâensemble, les analyses mettent en Ă©vidence les sĂ©rieux Ă©carts Ă combler pour que les projets de mise en valeur des ressources amĂ©liorent la durabilitĂ© des collectivitĂ©s de lâArctique. Ces Ă©carts comprennent la bonne comprĂ©hension des incidences cumulatives, lâaptitude des collectivitĂ©s Ă participer adĂ©quatement aux nouveaux processus rĂ©glementaires, les aspects non Ă©conomiques du bien-ĂȘtre, les effets des ententes sur les retombĂ©es et les incidences, les nouvelles retombĂ©es financiĂšres de mĂȘme que les nouvelles activitĂ©s dâattĂ©nuation
Recommended from our members
Arriving at Appropriate Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: A First Nationâs Perspective
Forest management in the Little Red River/Tall Cree traditionally used territory has long been dictated by
âprofessionallyâ trained foresters whose interests often run counter to those of aboriginal community residents. Because of
this, band members have largely been excluded from the decision making process while their concerns, values, and
knowledge have failed to be recognized, let alone applied, to the planning process. However, through the development of
criteria and performance indicators, derived from a community perspective, an ongoing system of feedbacks is being used in
the development of a self-improving management system which is facilitating an assessment of forest management as it
relates directly to Little Red River/Tall Cree culture and their continued land use needs
Beyond the Berger Inquiry: Can extractive resource development help the sustainability of Canadaâs 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