To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

How to transfigure the Wikipedia

Would you like Wikipedia to always look as professional and up-to-date? We have created a browser extension. It will enhance any encyclopedic page you visit with the magic of the WIKI 2 technology.

Try it — you can delete it anytime.

Install in 5 seconds
4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
Great Wikipedia has got greater.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Comanagement in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Co-management, also known as 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.[1] Although co-management encompasses a spectrum of power-sharing arrangements,[2] in the Canadian context it typically refers to agreements between government agencies and representatives of Indigenous 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.).[3]

Co-management has come to mean institutional arrangements whereby governments and Aboriginal entities (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.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1997

Co-management arrangements in Canada between Crown governments and Indigenous groups have historically arisen out of comprehensive land claims settlements (modern treaties),[4] crisis resolution processes (i.e. over resource disputes), and more recently out of growing legal recognition of Indigenous right through supreme court jurisprudence, such as the 1999 Sparrow ruling.[1] Where Crown governments enter into co-management agreements to minimize management costs or uphold human rights commitments, such Canada's endorsement of the United Nation's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous groups leverage co-management strategically as a tool to advance their self-determination as distinct cultures and to reclaim political agency.[1][5][6] Historically, co-management has been a subject of debate. From one stance, co-management is viewed as a paternalistic administrative arrangement levied by the state that reifies colonial relationships by co-opting Indigenous peoples, excludes Indigenous forms of law and governance, and/or displaces Indigenous assertions of sovereignty.[7][8][9] In nearly all co-management agreements, the Minister maintains unfettered veto rights, which is a source of contention among critics of co-management.[7][10] Proponents of co-management highlight its utility as an adaptive platform by which Indigenous peoples can assert their sovereignty and jurisdiction, and engage in power-sharing arrangements with the state.[11][12] Indigenous perspectives on co-management have been under represented in studies on co-management and critiques against co-management erroneously reduce Indigenous peoples to subjects without agency or the capacity to politically organize.[6]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    100 185
    1 559
    3 253
  • What happened to the Grand Banks cod?
  • U of T Scarborough Supplementary Application
  • Sturgeon Spawn Release - Manitoba Hydro

Transcription

The Grand Banks once supported one of the largest stocks of cod in the world, now mostly gone from overfishing. In the Barents sea, same fish same overfishing problems but today, they stil have their fish. So what needed to change in Canada? It turned out cod, was made of meat. And bigger cod was made out of more meat. Their flesh is soft and flaky and high in protein. They're built for catching prey in quick bursts but give almost no fight on a line or against nets. To feed they open their giant mouths and take in anything they can see. They'll even eat their own young. You can shape a piece of lead like a baby cod and they'll try to eat it. All this makes them a great commercial. The grand banks have been fished since before settlers had come to north america . Among other countries, It's been fished by Spain, Portugal, Russia, Germany, France, the United states and Greenland. and Canada. The early described the grand banks as inexhaustible. But that's just because for centuries people fished using wind powered boats with oar powered dories to send out long lines. Then they would salt the cod and dry them on land. Now they're bigger, covered and gas powered ships, with bottom trawl nets, refrigeration and procesing facilities that lets them go out further, longer, catch more fish, keep them fresher and with less effort. Because of the new technologies, between 1958 and 1977 the catch of cod reached record levels. Most of it was caught by the non-Canadian offshore ships. Canada pushed for 200 mile limits within which any resources would belong to the countries they border. Only two areas were outside Canadian control. But rather than conserve the resource, through subsidies Canada expanded its own offshore fleet to exploit the gap left by the foreign ships. The government can transfer money to fishers in many ways: But the largest of these subsidies was the unemployment insurance, meant to motivate people to enter and stay in the fishery. But the problem was.... .....that it was motivating people to enter and stay in the fishery.A simplified predator and prey relationship goes like this: If predator population get's too large and eat too much of their prey, then prey numbers decline. Later the predators might not have enough food so they'll die off a bit. Which decreases pressure on the prey population who can increase in numbers. Which in turn gives the predators more food allowing them to increase in numbers. And so on. When the government gives money to the industry it alters that feedback loop. The industry doesn't grow and shrink with the resource, and the fleet and fish processors grow to overcapacity. Between 1981 and 1990, employment insurance was 50-60% of a fisherman's total income. Which was bad. But subsidies might not be the only problem. Technology might allow the fishermen to find and catch fish faster than the fish can reproduce. So the government set a quota, of how much they're allowed to catch. But obviously it was being set too high. Back then, quotas were based on the maximum sustainable yield. Let' s say this is the maximum population the fish can reach because of food and habitat constraints. Let's say if you take this much it will grow back to max population. Or if you take this much it will grow back. The maximum sustainable yield is the spot where you can take the most with the population growing back. Catching more than this is "unsustainable", so quotas are set a bit below for safety. But settings quotas like this only looks at one organism at a time. For example, if Mackeral eats Herring eggs, and Herring eats Cod eggs. and cod are probably eating their own eggs. Fishing herring can affect the other population of the others. And they all eat different things at different life stages. Also it ignores the size and age of the fish. Cod reach sexually maturity at 2-4 years of age. They never stop growing and can be gigantic. The bigger they are the more and better the eggs they produce. But when you fish them a lot, they're population is smaller and younger. So the MSY isn't a good representation of the fishes productivity. On top of that it's almost impossible to know how much fish there are. They're basically invisible because they're under a bunch of water.... and they move around. That's why realistic statistics are presented with, among many other ignored features, a range to account for the uncertaintly and assumptions. So when the researchers presented their findings like: "OK, now you should be conservative because we don't actually know how many fish there are. But we think there's probably maybe somewhere between 150 000 - 200 000 tons of fish..." " 200 000 tons of fish... sounds good" said the government. And the researchers couldn't work around the politicians and tell people what was really going on or they could lose their jobs. Departmental guidelines restricts speaking out against the position of the department. A former DFO employee said the government would "hide negative any negative information that took the gloss off what they presented. Jake Rice, former head of DFO's ground fish division admitted: "you can only tell half the answer because the other half is still being debated in Ottawa for its political sensitivities" Hiding a part of the whole truth is just lying. At least that's what I learned from Saturday morning cartoons. Since the stock was falling, the inshore fishermen complained about their falling catches. But they were ignored by the government. They said, "the offshore fleet aren't complaining and they're still catching loads!" But the offshore fleet were using new technologies and navigations systems to target the fish exactly where they were hiding. Lots were still being caught but their numbers were falling. So when the estimates came back uncertain, but low, the government looked at them with a positive light because they wanted a return on their investments and they didn't want to piss off offshore fishermen by cutting quotas. This is centralized decision making at its worst. Even in the last year before the collapse when the researchers recommended serious quota cuts, the minister said the quotas were so low they were "demented". Basically the government didn't want to make a decision that would create a loss of jobs. But, to create jobs or to preserve jobs, those aren't proper goals. If they were the government could do anything to make jobs and people would be happy. They could subsidize the Face Digging Industy. Specializing in digging ditches with your face. With Competitive wages. Everybody wants to have a job, so they can buy bagels and exercise equipment from the TV. But that's not why a job exists. Jobs exist because the work is needed or is in demand. A job isn't justifiable by any other reason. Decisions shouldn't be made with the employment rate in mind. But the best way to maintian fishing jobs, is to make sure there's fish. Making sure there are fish is like the other thing you have to think about. Other than who gets to fish, and how you're gonna get them outta the water. So after the collapse when everyone lost their jobs. The cod didn't come back like they thought they would. Government warlocks sensed that seals were responsible. So the government increased seal hunting subsidies and quotas. Buuuut it didn't help. Let's look somewhere less stupid In the late 80s in Barents sea, the Northern Norwegian fishers had an almost identical problem. Like in Newfoundland their policy makers and researchers had expected their stock to increase but in 1989 saw that the fish population was declining from overfishing. They had as much subsidization and government control and they had manage it with other countries, mainly Russia. But when the researcher came back and recommended a drastic cut in the fish quota to 100 000 tons. The government said... OK. People lost their jobs. There were huge increases in depression and alcoholism, outmigration... poor economic times that they hadn't seen since the great depression. It was all the things the Canadian government wanted to avoid on their hands. But, since the quotas were cut while the stock still had some life, the fish population rose. And continued to rise. Today they have the healthiest and largest stock of cod in the world and in 2013 the quota was set for a million tons. So what was the difference? Was it just a difference in leadership competence? Maybe, but there are at least 3 other differences. The Marine Research Insitute, while a government body, was separate from the central management authority. So the research wasn't influenced by the politicians, who can worry about their image more than the truth. Secondly, in the decade after the decline the Norwegian government cut basically all subsidization of the fishing industry, to reduce overcapacity. Finally in Norway the fishers had strong local governments, with elected officials. They were only an advisory body to the government and didn't have a lot of power on paper, but things couldn't easily be imposed on them, and decisions generally went through them. This increased communication and trust. With so many competing interests over such a large area, government control is typically the go-to management scheme. But without a little communication or co-management you get governments ignoring fishermen, and fishermen hating the government and refusing to follow new rules. Fisherman: "And not only me, every fisherman on this island, we're going fishing!" In the end the government doesn't have to deal with the social or economic effects like they think they do. Their just the ones that make the decisions. .. you can tell things that are alive from things that are not alive. It's also pretty easy to tell things that alive from things that are dead. But.. what is life? There isn't really a straight forward definition, but a set of descriptors that say what life generally has. But that's sorta like explaining what a tampon is by describing the parts of a tampon. But never saying it's a thing you stuff up a vagina to absorb the blue liquid that girls excrete. The best overall description is probably that life characterizes objects that have signalling and self sustaining processes....

Land claims based fish and wildlife co-management arrangements

There are 26 land claim settlements in Canada to date and each modern treaty has provisions for fish and wildlife co-management. Co-management arrangements created from these legally negotiated agreements may be referred to as land claims based co-management. An example of one such arrangement is the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB).[13] These agreements offer some advantages because they are constitutionally protected in Canada and outline clear roles and responsibilities for parties to the agreements.

Co-management of Protected Areas in Canada

Canada's earliest national parks, intended for tourism and resource protection, notoriously excluded and displaced Indigenous peoples from their boundaries.[14] Over the 20th century, there were several events and transformations in Canadian politics and within Parks Canada Agency that have led to improved engagement and relations with Indigenous peoples across their system. One of the most significant advancements for Indigenous-state relationships was the 1975 Comprehensive Land Claim Policy out of which many national parks were established, as described below. Soon thereafter, 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"[15] and to sustain the local Indigenous community's ability to continue traditional activities on the land.[16] In the 1990s, Parks Canada Agency finally restructured many of its internal policies to allow for Indigenous peoples to continue some traditional activities and then introduced National Park Reserves (national parks "to-be" pending land claim settlements) into the Canada National Parks Act.[17][18][16]

Kluane National Park and Reserve is co-managed by Kluane First Nation, Champage-Aishihik First Nation, and the Canadian Government.

Parks Canada co-manages many of its protected areas with local Indigenous peoples as the direct result of comprehensive land claims agreements. The first of these, Ivvavik National Park, in the Yukon and Inuvialuit Settlement Region, is under co-management as a result of provisions included in the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement.[19][17] 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.[20] In certain cases, such as in the Thaidene Nëné National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories and Łutsël K'é Dene territory, other types of protected areas (e.g. Territorial Protected Areas) have been established in conjunction with national parks.[21] These collaborative projects are often initiated by Indigenous partners.[17] In contrast to the Northern context, Southern Canada, where socio-political complexities relating to treaty context and jurisdictional overlap abound, agreement-making between Indigenous groups and Parks Canada Agency and Indigenous engagement in general is less consistent.[17][1][22] Many of these Southern Parks are witnessing changes in the way the state engages with its Indigenous partners as a result of the Parks Canada Agency's policy development.[23][24]

Provincial and territorial protected areas also utilize co-management arrangements for their administration. Similar to the federal context, these are frequently a result of provincial land claim settlements, mostly 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 PC Parks, was a stated provision within the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement.[25] A separate but related phenomenon is the joint management of parks by two governments without an Indigenous 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.[26]

Co-management of Resources in Canada

The West Coast of Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board is an example of co-management in fisheries.[27] 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 co-management agreements or management entities that concern resource management, such as the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope) in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.[1][28] Comprehensive land claims of Yukon First Nations include the creation of local resource management bodies called Renewable Resource Councils,[28][29] some of which serve as management entities on co-management boards themselves.[17]

Resource crises have also spawned the creation of co-management boards. A well-studied example is the defunct Ruby Range Sheep Steering Committee established in 1995 to assess Dall Sheep population dynamics in Southwest Yukon.[30] The committee was composed of representatives from local Indigenous communities, 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.[30]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Notzke, Claudia (May 1995). "A new perspective in aboriginal natural resource management: Co-management". Geoforum. 26 (2): 187–209. doi:10.1016/0016-7185(95)00019-h. ISSN 0016-7185.
  2. ^ Berkes, F., George, P., & Preston, R. (1991). Co-Management: The Evolution of the Theory and Practice of the Joint Administration of Living Resources (No. 1; TASO Research Report, Second Series. Program for Technology Assessment in Subarctic Ontario). McMaster University.
  3. ^ "ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS Co-Management Definitions Guide" (PDF). Assembly of First Nations. Retrieved August 1, 2014.
  4. ^ Canada, Government of Canada; Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs (2023-02-22). "Modern treaties". www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca. Retrieved 2023-09-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ Reed, G., Brunet, N. D., Longboat, S., & Natcher, D. C. (2021). Indigenous guardians as an emerging approach to indigenous environmental governance. Conservation Biology, 35(1), 179–189. doi:10.1111/cobi.13532
  6. ^ a b Martin, T. (2016). Beyond the Protection of the Land, National Parks in the Canadian Arctic: A Way to Actualized and Institutionalized Aboriginal Cultures in the Global. In T. M. Herrmann & T. Martin (Eds.), Indigenous Peoples' Governance of Land and Protected Territories in the Arctic. Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25035-9
  7. ^ a b Youdelis, M., Nakoochee, R., O'Neil, C., Lunstrum, E., & Roth, R. (2020). "Wilderness" revisited: Is Canadian park management moving beyond the "wilderness" ethic? The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 64(2), 232–249. doi:10.1111/cag.12600
  8. ^ Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T., Lassen, B., Broome, N. P., Phillips, A., & Sandwith, T. (2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding to Action (No. 20; Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series, p. 124). International Union for Conservation of Nature.
  9. ^ Finegan, C. (2018). Reflection, Acknowledgement, and Justice: A Framework for Indigenous-Protected Area Reconciliation. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 9(3). doi:10.18584/iipj.2018.9.3.3
  10. ^ Parks Canada. (2018). We rise together: Achieving pathway to Canada target 1 through the creation of Indigenous protected and conserved areas in the spirit and practice of reconciliation : the Indigenous Circle of Experts' report and recommendations. Parks Canada. https://www.deslibris.ca/ID/10096675
  11. ^ Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1692–1702. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001
  12. ^ Clark, D., & Joe-Strack, J. (2017). Keeping the "co" in the co-management of Northern resources. Northern Public Affairs, 71–74.
  13. ^ "NWMB - NWMB". www.nwmb.com. Retrieved 2023-09-09.
  14. ^ Binnema, T.; Niemi, M. (2006-10-01). "'Let the Line be Drawn Now': Wilderness, Conservation, and the Exclusion of Aboriginal People from Banff National Park in Canada". Environmental History. 11 (4): 724–750. doi:10.1093/envhis/11.4.724. ISSN 1084-5453.
  15. ^ Thomlinson, E., & Crouch, G. (2012). Aboriginal peoples, Parks Canada, and protected spaces: A case study in co-management at Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve. Annals of Leisure Research, 15(1), 69–86. doi:10.1080/11745398.2012.670965
  16. ^ a b Timko, JoleenA; Satterfield, Terre (2008). "Seeking Social Equity in National Parks: Experiments with Evaluation in Canada and South Africa". Conservation and Society. 6 (3): 238. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.49216. hdl:10535/2928. ISSN 0972-4923.
  17. ^ a b c d e Dearden, P., & Bennett, N. (2016). The Role of Aboriginal Peoples in Protected Areas. In P. Dearden, R. Rollins, & M. Needham (Eds.), Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management (4th ed., pp. 357–390). Oxford University Press.
  18. ^ Langdon, S., Prosper, R., & Gagnon, N. (2010). Two Paths One Direction: Parks Canada and Aboriginal Peoples Working Together. The George Wright Forum, 27(2), 12.
  19. ^ Parks Canada Agency, Government of Canada (2018-10-22). "Park Management - Ivvavik National Park". www.pc.gc.ca. Retrieved 2021-03-30.
  20. ^ "Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement". Nunatsiavut Government. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  21. ^ "Thaidene Nëné | Decades in the Making". Land of the Ancestors. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  22. ^ Rodon, Thierry (April 1998). "Co‐management and self‐determination in Nunavut". Polar Geography. 22 (2): 119–135. doi:10.1080/10889379809377641. ISSN 1088-937X.
  23. ^ Murray, G., & King, L. (2012). First Nations Values in Protected Area Governance: Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks and Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. Human Ecology, 40(3), 385–395. doi:10.1007/s10745-012-9495-2
  24. ^ Youdelis, M. (2016). "They could take you out for coffee and call it consultation!": The colonial           antipolitics of Indigenous consultation in Jasper National Park. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 48(7), 1374–1392. doi:10.1177/0308518X16640530
  25. ^ BC Parks. "Thunderbird's Nest (T'iitsk'in Paawats) Protected Area". Retrieved April 12, 2021.
  26. ^ "History". www.cypresshills.com. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  27. ^ "Governance Board – West Coast Aquatic". Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  28. ^ a b "The Final Agreement". Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope). Retrieved 2021-04-16.
  29. ^ "Renewable Resources Councils - Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board". yfwmb.ca. Retrieved 2021-04-16.
  30. ^ a b Paul., Nadasdy (2014). Hunters and Bureaucrats : Power, Knowledge, and Aboriginal-State Relations in the Southwest Yukon. UBC Press. ISBN 978-0-7748-5188-6. OCLC 923441532.
This page was last edited on 30 December 2023, at 15:06
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.
Contact WIKI 2
Introduction
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy