co-management and operations strategy at the whitefeather forest
TRANSCRIPT
Co-management of natural resources
and operations strategy
Analysis of the Whitefeather Forest Initiative in Ontario,
Canada
By Lindsay Addie
CPIT: AMRI700: Resource Integration
Tutor: Frik du Beer
Date: 23rd of May, 2013
1
Table of Contents
Research Topic…………………………………………………………………………….2
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….2
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………4
Literature Review…………………………………………………………………..5
Part one
Co-management and Adaptive management………………………..…………7
Commentary………………………………………………………………………..9
Part Two
Whitefeather Forest Initiative…………………………………………………….11
Co-management and Operations Strategy……………………………………..14
Commentary………………………………………………………………………..15
Part Three
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………...16
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………....17
References………………………………………………………………………………….18
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………...21
2
Research Topic
Have co-management principles as they relate to natural resources been effective in
supporting the operations strategy of the Whitefeather Forest Initiative in Ontario, Canada?
Executive Summary
Co-management
Co-management of natural resources is relatively new area of management which has
attracted the attention of academic so a significant body of literature already exists. The
literature is in broad agreement that co-management is complex mainly because there are a
multitude of factors at play and how to deal with them. The key factors according to Fikret
Berkes deal with power sharing, trust, social learning, knowledge, institution building,
process, problem solving, governance, and innovation.
It is agreed by scholars that co-management solutions need to designed on a case-by-case
basis and there are currently no precise systems or frameworks that can be applied.
Adaptive management is allied to co-management and is theory that asserts that
management of natural resources is a discipline that is in a constant state of flux and that is
has to be managed with flexibility.
The Whitefeather Forest Initiative
The Whitefeather Forest Initiative was initiated in 1996 by the Pikangikum First Nation an
indigenous people from Ontario Canada. They wanted to forge a partnership with the
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to facilitate effective management of the Whitefeather
forest. This proved successful after a period of negotiations and consultation with legal
agreement being reached and plans developed and ultimately actioned formally establishing
a co-management arrangement. The Pikangikum considered of vital importance that they
play key roles in the management of the forest and that their cultural beliefs be blended in
with the principles of western science ensure that the forest is managed in accordance with
their spiritual and cultural beliefs.
The operations strategy for the forest has multiple parts as it deals with ecology, cultural
resources, recreation resources, timber and mining and other factors. This requires flexible
and effective management.
Conclusions
In analysing the effectiveness of co-management practices employed at the WFI it was
found that they have been used effectively due to the quality and depth planning right at the
start of the project. This was made easier by the high standard of the mandatory planning
process put in place by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Another success factor was the willingness of the parties to engage thorough and
meaningful dialogue not just on legal and management issues but taking the time to forge
constructive personal understanding between the ministry staff and the Pikangikum. This is a
considerable achievement as on the surface there are significant differences between them
on many issues.
Co-management requires that best use be made of knowledge. This was also a success due
to the willingness of the parties to work together in positive manner but also due to the
information system NRVIS which is a customised database of complex data which includes
a wide variety of data types.
3
The overall success of the WFI is due to the deep attention to detail that has been put into all
key parts of the management of the forest. This is in agreement with the theory of co-
management which contends that a holistic view of management must be taken.
4
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to explain the principles of the co-management of natural
resources and based on academic literature whether or not it has an effective role in the
operational strategy of co-managed natural resources. The second part of the report
analyses the Whitefeather Forest Initiative (WFI) which is in Ontario Canada. The report
discusses and analyses the main features provides a summary of the operations strategy
and outlines the history of the WFI.
Limitations
This report does not attempt to analyse the policies of the State Government of Ontario and
does not deal with the legislative framework and Acts of Parliament that relate to the WFI.
In terms of the operations strategy of the WFI the capital and material resources are not
analysed nor have any conclusions been drawn on these subject. Neither does the report
attempt to conduct an in-depth analysis of effectiveness the operations strategy.
Abbreviations:
OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
PFN Pikangikum First Nation (an indigenous people)
WFI Whitefeather Forest Initiative
WFMC Whitefeather Forest Management Corporation
5
Literature Review
Introduction
The literature discussed in this review is in three parts. The first part deals with literature that
is involved with the Whitefeather Forest Initiative either directly such as strategic and
management planning documents or documentation that was part of the planning processes
required by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The second section discusses
literature that deals with traditional knowledge and how it can be used with western scientific
methods. The final part surveys literature on the co-management of natural resources.
Whitefeather Forest
The planning procedures for the setting up of the management of protected areas such as
the Whitefeather Forest are laid out in the Ontario Parks Protected Areas Planning Manual
which describes in detailed steps which one is the requirement to produce a Terms of
Reference that covers all necessary steps from the planning manual (OMNR, 2009). The
Whitefeather Forest Terms of Reference (OMNR and WFMC, 2009) define the specific
geographic areas, lists planning roles and responsibilities, the planning context and other
management topics, resource integration, the communications strategy, and has a timeline.
The overall strategy of WFI is contained in a document entitled ‘Keeping the Land’ (PFN,
2006).
Traditional Knowledge
Usher (as cited in Houde, 2007, p. 1) defines traditional knowledge (TK) as
TK refers specifically to all types of knowledge about the environment derived from
experience and traditions of a particular group of people.
(Huntingdon, 2000) investigates the methods and applications of Traditional Ecological
Knowledge (TEK) in Science and discusses examples where it has been used. (Houde,
2007) in a similar vein investigates methods of collecting data in TEK and discusses the
challenges present to governments and bureaucrats.
Co - management
Co-management of ecological resources has been given numerous definitions with the
World Bank (as cited in Carlsson & Berkes, 2004, p. 66) defining it as:
the sharing of responsibilities, rights and duties between the primary stakeholders, in
particular, local communities and the nation state; a decentralized approach to
decision making that involves the local users in the decision making process as
equals with the nation-state.
Scholars of co-management have written about the subject of the whether or not top-down
management styles can be effective with (Carlsson & Berkes, 2004, p. 66) arguing that co-
management should be seen as an approach to governance and not merely a power sharing
arrangement and advocate using it as an instrument for organisational development and
decision making.
(Ostrom & Cox, 2010, p. 454) assert that co-management needs to be polycentric and argue
that the top down approach traditionally favoured by governments isn’t effective. In addition
in a paper that advocates governments devolve powers in the management of natural
resources (Berkes, 2010, p. 490) observes that the complexity of natural resource
6
management needs a polycentric and multileveled approach to co-management. (Carlsson
& Berkes, 2004, pp. 65-66) have a very similar view.
The models for the co-management of ecological resources are usually based on the eight
principles elucidated by Nobel Prize laureate Elinor Ostrom. These are:
1) clearly defined boundaries
2) Match rules with local natural resource conditions
3) Individuals most affected by operational rules need to able to participate in modifying such
rules
4) Effective monitoring procedures
5) Graduated sanctions (for violators of operational rules)
6) Conflict resolution procedures
7) Autonomy of stakeholders
8) Nested systems: large complex natural resources should be organised in multiple layers
of nested enterprises (Ostrom, 1990, pp. 90-102).
Fikret Berkes developed his own principles for co-management which are named the ‘faces
of management’ (Berkes, 2009, pp. 1693-5). (Borrini-Feyerabend et al, 2007) give definitions
of co-management and adaptive management and discusses methodologies for planning co-
management entities and discusses methods for facilitating participation.
7
PART ONE
Introduction
Part one discusses the academic theory behind co-management of natural resources. The
principles of using it them in practice is then explained followed by a brief outline on the topic
of adaptive management. Finally there is a commentary which discusses co-management as
it relates to operations strategy.
Co - Management
Co-management of natural resources has been the subject of much literature by scholars in
the last twenty years. (Borrini-Feyerabend et al, 2007, p. 13) describe co-management as:
A situation in which two or more social actors negotiate, define and guarantee
amongst themselves a fair sharing of management functions, entitlements and
responsibilities for a given territory, area or a set of natural resources.
(Ostrom & Cox, 2010, p. 454) assert that co-management needs to be polycentric and argue
that the top down approach traditionally favoured by governments as a management isn’t an
effective workable model in ecological co-management. In addition in a paper that advocates
governments devolve powers in the management of natural resources (Berkes, 2010, p.
490) observes that the complexity of natural resource management is for him a key reason
for the adoption of a more polycentric and multileveled approach to co-management.
(Carlsson and Berkes, 2004, p. 67) assert that co-management is inherently complex with
the key complexities being:
1. The State
2. The community
3. The dynamic and iterative nature of the system
4. Co-management of the co-governance system
5. Adaptive learning and problem solving
6. The ecosystem
7. Ecosystems that are providing managed resources.
An example in the case of the state is a government department or government agency
frequently will have multiple working relationships (or joint management agreements) with
various other parties or stakeholders to facilitate the management of natural resource.
Fikret Berkes developed what he called the ‘faces of management’ which are criteria he
considers as the foundation of a successful implementation of co-management. In more
detail these criteria are:
Co-management as:
Description Comments
Power sharing Land claim agreements
Legislation
Participatory management
Borrini-Feyerabend et al (as cited
in Berkes, 2009, p. 1693 observes
that “participatory management
needs participatory roots”.
Institution
building
Favourable policy environment Ostrom (as cited in Berkes, 2009,
p. 1693) advocated building on the
8
Replace old institutions
Two-way feedback (networking)
strengths of existing institutions or
constructing new ones.
Trust and social
capital
Build up trust between parties
Grass roots involvement
Trust is a key ingredient in co-
management (Berkes, 2009, p.
1694)
Process Co-management isn’t a means
to an end but is an ongoing
process (continuous
improvement)
Takes time to establish
Pinkerton (as cited in Berkes,
2009, p. 1694) views co-
management as not an endpoint
but a process where there are
constant changes in the
relationships between the parties.
Problem solving Collaborative processes to
establish consensus
Concentration on the function
and not the formal structure of
the arrangement
(Berkes, 2009, p. 1694 “Co-
management evolves adaptively
as a result of deliberative problem
solving”.
Governance Diversity of players
Problem solving at the lowest
feasible level of the organisation
Polycentric with multiple links
across of levels and domains
Overlapping centres of authority
(Berkes, 2009, p. 1694) a
recognition that good governance
involves multiple links across
levels and domains.
Knowledge Blend traditional knowledge with
western science (cross
fertilization of ideas)
Effective use of social networks
Davidson & Flaherty (as cited in
Berkes, 2009, p. 1695) “different
actors need to work and think
together, and deliberate to
generate new knowledge or make
sense of knowledge from different
sources”.
Social learning Experiential learning
Transformative learning
Group based and multi-level
learning is increasingly seen as
important (Berkes, 2009, p. 1696).
Innovation Implement new solutions to
regional problems.
(Kofinas et al, 2007)
Table One: Faces of co-management – adapted from (Berkes, 2009, pp. 1693-5)
9
Adaptive management is considered by scholars as being important in co-management.
(Olsson et al, 2004, p. 1) give the following definition:
…flexible community-based systems of resource management tailored to specific
places and situations and supported by, and working with, various organisations at
different levels.
(Hahn et al, p.2) identified four key aspects of adaptive management:
1. Building knowledge and understanding of resource and ecosystem dynamics
2. Feeding ecological knowledge into adaptive management practices
3. Supporting flexible institutions and multilevel governance systems
4. Dealing with external drivers, change and surprise.
Commentary
There are clear links between these definitions of adaptive management and the faces of co-
management model of Berkes discussed previously. The ideas of building knowledge,
problem solving link in with adaptive management theory where it is argued that
organisations need to be able to exhibit flexibility and improve decision making by
abandoning top down management methodologies.
The important question that needs to be dealt with is can co-management models and
strategies and adaptive management with its emphasis on flexibility, constant change and
continuous improvement possibly have any significant effect on operational strategy?
Removing top-down organisational structures and creating deep cross-organisational links at
the lower levels has already been discussed. This would appear to be potentially important
when developing and implementing operational strategies as there is an opportunity to
obtain high quality feedback from people who are directly involved in the operations
challenges an organisation is facing.
Two of the principle resources that are fundamental to operations strategy are of particular
interest. One is the use of the human resource and the other is knowledge. Capital isn’t
normally a major issue in relation to co-management of natural resources as such
programmes are frequently funded by the government (state or national). This also applies
to materials and equipment as they’re usually provided by government agencies and
departments who are stakeholders and who have specialist expertise in ecological science
and the like.
The human and knowledge resources are also key parts of the co-management of natural
resources. Ecological management is by its very nature complex but when an issue such as
traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples is added to the mix then the diversity of beliefs
and opinions about the scientific foundations for a natural resource comes to the fore. So
how does this fusion of traditional beliefs and western science play out?
Scholars such as Berkes in his model discussed previously and (Ostrom, 1990, pp. 90-102)
who developed the original criteria for co-management models consider adaptive learning
and problem solving to be critically important. The handling of knowledge in co-management
has two distinct facets. One is establishing an effective working relationship between two
quite different approaches to management and science. So the first step in achieving a
successful fusion of these two disparate belief systems into a body of knowledge which
probably will not be a fast process and also making sure that effective information systems
are put in place so that the large array of data can be properly analysed and collated so that
10
an effective operations strategy can be developed and that efficient operations management
can occur.
It also needs to be borne in mind as in the operations strategy development and
implementation in all enterprises organisation must each find its own path to achieve
strategic goals as in the case of co-management of ecological resources there are no
textbook answers. Typically the solutions should be developed and executed on a case-by-
case basis.
11
PART TWO: CASE STUDY
Introduction
This section starts off by explaining the Whitefeather Forest background and history. There
is a summary of the operations strategy and ends with a discussion of the WFI in relation to
co-management and operations strategy
The Whitefeather Forest Initiative
The Whitefeather Forest Initiative is a co-management arrangement between the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and Pikangikum First Nation (Pkangikum) who are an
indigenous people from Northwest Ontario, Canada. In 1996 Pikangikum first approached
the OMNR with the intent of putting in place a community-based forestry development for the
Whitefeather Forest to be managed in partnership with the OMNR.
The initially the planning during the early stages of negotiations for the Whitefeather Forest
was based on a framework released by the OMNR entitled the Northern Boreal Initiative
(NBI) which deals with land use planning. More importantly the NBI laid the foundation for
the indigenous peoples to be involved in the commercial development of forests (OMNR,
2001).
1998 saw the Pikangikum establish the Whitefeather Forest Management Corporation
(WFMC) which has a mandate to undertake planning and development of the forest. The
WFMC also with interested organisations and group undertake research projects that
investigate areas of scientific interest (Whitefeather Management Corporation, 2013, para. 1-
3).
In 2006 the Pikangikum with cooperation form the OMNR released a strategy document
entitled Keeping the Land: A Land Use Strategy for the Whitefeather Forest an Adjacent
Areas.
The Pikangikum vision for the forest is as follows:
A future in which our people are able to maintain our ancestral stewardship responsibilities
for keeping the Land for the continued survival and well-being of Pikangikum people. (PFN,
2006, p. 1).
The overarching goal for the Pikangikum and the OMNR is to achieve long term ecosystem
sustainability (PFN, 2006, p. 5).
There are two key strategic goals for the Pikangikum in relation to the forest:
1. Create economic and employment opportunities.
2. Put a land use strategy in place where resource management blends Pikangikum’s
indigenous belief with western science.
Adapted from (PFN, 2006, p. 5)
Under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 the forest is deemed to be
a protected area.
The map below shows the location of the Whitefeather Forest Protection Area (WFPA). The
WFPA is in the light coloured area labelled Pikangikum.
12
Diagram One: Whitefeather Forest Protected Area (Pikangikum First Nation, 2006, p. 20)
The Land Use Strategy document is key to understanding the overall goals in the running of
the forest.
The overall philosophy for the management of the forest is called ‘Keeping the Land’ which
has three components:
The first is the concept of Stewardship and Protection. Like many other indigenous peoples
the Pikangikum have a deep infinity with the land. In their own words:
13
This is an obligation that derives from our being placed on these lands as Keepers of
the land. We have observed this obligation since time immemorial and will carry
forward this obligation through all of our land use activities in the Whitefeather Forest
Planning Area. This is how we stay in touch with the land, how we continue to learn
about the land (PFN, 2006, p. 8).
The second part of the philosophy is that of customary activities. This relates closely to the
Pikangikum traditional ways of living and includes the strategic goal of integrating
commercial pursuits such as trapping fishing, wild rice harvesting. (PFN, 2006, p. 10).
The third component of the philosophy is community economic development which includes
the goals of creating employment opportunities, and creating new business ventures in
forestry, mining and eco-cultural tourism (PFN, 2006, p. 11).
Responsibilities
The forest is run via consensus based decision-making with the Pikangikum taking a
significant role in the planning and day-to-day running of the forest. The Northern Boreal
Initiative gives the indigenous the right to participate and take a leading role in the
management of natural resources (PFN, 2006, p. 13).
The OMNR as a collaborative partner is responsible for making sure that statutory
regulations and laws are being followed and is heavily involved in planning and in zoning of
land.(OMNR, 2005) gives a detailed description and explanation of the OMNR’s overall
strategic intent for the management of natural resources.
Operations Strategy
The appendix (page) lists the key elements of the strategic management goals. The key
elements that are considered here are:
1. Ecological resource management in partnership with the Ontario Ministry for Natural
Resources.
2. The maintenance of cultural values (and cultural sites).
3. Economic development by way of various commercial enterprises in timber, mining,
fishing and tourism. These are partnerships with various stakeholders.
4. Infrastructure development and maintenance (roads, buildings etc.).
Of the four resources (capital, human, knowledge and materials) that are a part of operations
strategy analysis this report is going to investigate two only which are human and knowledge
because these are considered to be of vital importance for WFI based on the results of the
research undertaken during the preparation of this report.
The Importance of Resources
Human: Bearing in mind that the Whitefeather Forest Initiative is a co-managed entity and
that there are a number of other partnerships with other stakeholders and the various
strategic goals listed above the quality of this resource is critical to the success of the
management of the forest. (Nikischer, 2008) goes into great detail of a long process of
negotiations, team building that took place between the PIkangikum and the OMNR staff in
order to build a consensus and trust that has become critical to the success of the forest
management programme. Ultimately the Pikangikum staff have taken the primary
responsibility for much of the day-to-day running of the Whitefeather Forest as it is their wish
to ‘be in the driving seat’. The OMNR staff are intensely involved in land planning, zoning
and similar tasks. They also supply scientific expertise.
14
Knowledge: This resource has multiple aspects that make it particularly challenging in the
context of managing the forest. First is the blending of Traditional Knowledge with western
science. The second challenging aspect is having suitable information systems in place so
that data is analysed correctly and is readily available and easy to use.
The Land Use Strategy, Terms of Reference, Forest Management Plan all reveal the depth
of knowledge that has been gained. Not only that but also the intense planning that went into
making the use of knowledge a key part of the overall process and there seems to have
been a recognition that it is critical to the operation strategy.
Co-management and Operations Strategy
Introduction
This section analyses if in the case of the Whitefeather Forest Initiative the co-management
principles discussed previously have made an impact or not on the management of the
forest. The principles to be used are based on Berkes model discussed in the table on page
7. Six of Berkes’ principles will be used: Power sharing, institution building, governance, trust
and social capital, social learning and knowledge.
Power Sharing
(Berkes, 2009, p. 1693) observes that power sharing can be seen at work at the legislative
level and by way of land claim agreement as are in place in Canada, Australia and New
Zealand. The interest here is how it worked at Whitefeather Forest. In a thesis that reports
on the attempts at collaborative management in the WFI (Nikischer, 2008) gives a detailed
account of the journey from the earliest negotiations to the achieving of consensus and
agreement on how power would be shared.
Evidence of power sharing is revealed in the WFI Terms of Reference (OMNR and WFMC,
2009b, pp. 11-14 which lists the roles for the steering committee, project planning team and
other groups and committees that worked on the initial establishment of the forest co-
management project. All the key roles have clearly been carefully assigned and evenly
balanced out between the Pikangikum and OMNR staff and other specialists.
The nature of the co-management structure has meant that new hybrid informal
organisational structures have developed which has meant that decision-making is genuinely
a consensus process.
Governance and Institution Building
With institution building in co-management. Jentoft and McCay, 1995 (as cited in Berkes,
2009, p. 1693) note that often local institutions are inexperienced at working with
Government departments and agencies. There is evidence that the PIkangikum and the
OMNR had a rather ineffective working relationship prior to 1996 (Nikischer, 2008, pp. 12-
13) but the Pikangikum have since shown by the effective handling of the many issues
involved in negotiating, planning and running the WFI.
Trust, Social Capital and Social Learning
Typically it takes time to build up a high level of trust in the initial stages of planning co-
management structure this proved to be the case with the WFI. Two very different views of
world were at play between the holistic spiritual view of the Pikangikum (especially the
elders) and the objective western attitudes of the OMNR staff with their scientific approach.
(Nasdasdy, 2007, p. 223) observes that politics and debate is important in establishing
15
successful co-management entities. This proved to be the case with the WFI with plenty of
healthy debate going on.
Learning within alliances created by co-managed entities has been of great interest to
scholar’s experiential learning, learning-by-doing and transformative learning being
considered important. For (Folke et al., 2005, p. 445) social learning is major part of co-
management especially when learning is self-organised.
Knowledge
The handling of knowledge on several levels has been well planned for example the
Whitefeather Forest Management Plan has a long list of sources of data and information that
are included in the customised information system called the Natural Resources Values
Information System (NRVIS). This has information from no less than 16 different sources
including management documents, surveys on wildlife habitats, reports written by the
indigenous people and assortment of information from various Ontario Government agencies
and departments (OMNR and WFMC, 2012, p. 66).
NRVIS is clearly a high quality database system that is a genuine assert that enables
information to be put to the proper use and contribute the operations strategies and
management being successful.
Commentary
The WFI has been very successful achievement with the co-management partners being
able to forge well thought out plans and procedures to develop an operations strategy that
allows the Pikangikum to be a genuine partner.
There were numerous barriers that could have derailed the project from the start the first
which has already been discussed which is the different in approaches to ecological science
and management. The second is that the Pikangikum did not have management experience
initially but have shown they have been willing to develop their skills in their own way and
make a major contribution.
The research question asked if co-management principles can be effective in the context of
operations strategy.
Using the WFI as a case study then the answer has to be a definite yes. This is because of
multiple reasons.
The initial planning process was handled with great aplomb by all concerned. The overall
strategies were always kept in mind during the planning stages this was greatly helped by
the OMNR’s well thought out planning procedures which by the way the process works
forces early planning to keep operations issues in mind.
The co-management philosophies of power sharing, trust – social capital and social learning
can be dealt with together. So much of this in the context of the WFI is what management
textbooks would label as leadership skills and organisational development. But in order for to
work the parties to the WFI had to realise that this was going to take time to establish.
Hurrying would have most likely made establishing a suitable operations strategy much more
difficult to develop and implement. This brings into play the principles of adaptive
management with its ideas on flexibility in ecological management. Adaptive management is
mentioned in the Land Use Strategy so it is considered to be important.
Adaptive management has a key role with the WFI when one bears on mind that the
operations strategy has multiple parts with the managing of multiple natural resources each
16
having their own separate stakeholders and operations challenges. For example tourism will
have different challenges to the management of the ecology of the Whitefeather Forest. So
far this has been dealt with in a very satisfactory manner but it needs to be realised that
effective co-management is an ongoing process a type of continuous improvement which if
not managed and administered to a high standard could derail key parts of an operations
strategy.
PART THREE
Conclusion
Doing the research for this report has meant that much has been learnt about how co-
management of ecological resources involving partners with very different world views can
work and achieve benefits for stakeholders. Another striking factor from the research on the
WFI was the extreme attention to detail that has gone into facets of the operation where the
participants have realised that using a process driven approach while still being mindful of
the strategic goals could be made to work.
What also was striking was the quality of the literature on adaptive management and co-
management. Much of this literature has used real world examples to analyse co-
management.
Co-management in ecology has much about that is promising (it is still a relatively new
concept) but it isn’t a magic potion that will work all the time. Without the attention to detail
that was shown on the WFI project it would be in danger of becoming dysfunctional and
unworkable in practice.
Another danger from an operations strategy perspective for co-management is if a top-down
approach is used with for example too much bureaucratic interference at the expense of
understanding properly the operations issues then co-management may not be a suitable
management model to achieve operational strategic goals.
17
Appendix – Summary of Strategic and Management Goals for the Whitefeather Forest
Initiative
Ecological Integrity
Remoteness and underdeveloped, clean waterways as the creator provided
Geological, aquatic and terrestrial diversity and special features or elements such as
landforms
Policies for resource stewardship, operations and development for:
Fisheries management (e.g. angling, bait-fishing, commercial fishing)
Wildlife management
Fire management
Vegetation management
Lands management (e.g. recreation and tourism camps)
Cultural Resources
Pikangikum cultural landscape sites and features
First Nation values (e.g. spiritual sites)
Historical sites
Recreation Resources
Operations
Natural Heritage Education (e.g. interpretation and information services)
Research (e.g. wildlife, fire, cultural landscapes)
Research management (e.g. motorized travel)
Tourism services
Marketing agreements (e.g. partnership agreements)
Developments
Economic Development
Access points (e.g. locations, facility requirements)
Roads
Promote sharing of benefits through partnerships
Implementation priorities for stewardship, operations and development policies
Teaching and transmission of the Indigenous tradition of the Pikangikum people.
From (OMNR & WFMC, 2009, pp. 15-16)
18
References
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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Farvar, M. T., Nguinguiri, J. C. & Ndangang, V. A.: Co-management
of Natural Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning-by-Doing. GTZ and
IUCN, Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg (Germany). Reprint 2007 [first published in
2000]. Retrieved from Conservation & Development website:
http://www.conservationdevelopment.net/rsFiles/Datei/CoManagement_English_Aufl
age2.pdf
Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2004). Co-management: Concepts and methodological
implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), 65-76. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/195618827?accountid=38794
Houde, N. (2007). The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: Challenges and
opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society,
12(2), 376. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/220513638?accountid=38794
Huntingdon, H. (2000). Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Science: Methods and
Applications. Ecological Applications 10(5). 1270-1274. Retrieved from
http://www.fws.gov/nativeamerican/graphics/TEK_Huntington_2000.pdf
NIkischer, H.A. (2008). History and Action in a Resource Planning Relationship:
Pikangikum’s Whitefeather Forest Management Corporation and The Red Lake
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from:
http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/canadaresearchchair/thesis/Nik
ischer.Masters%20Thesis.Oct%2008.pdf
Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in
social-ecological systems. Environmental Management, 34(1), 75-90.
19
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2001). Northern Boreal Initiative. Retrieved from the
ontarionature.org website:
http://www.ontarionature.org/discover/resources/PDFs/toolkits/PAToolkit/8_Northern
_Borial_Init.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2005). Our Sustainable Future. Retrieved from:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@about/documents/docu
ment/mnr_e000002.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2009). Ontario Parks Protected Areas Planning
Manual. Retrieved from the Ontario Parks website:
http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/planning_pdf/papm/papm_approved.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, & Whitefeather Forest Management Corporation.
(2009a). Whitefeather Forest Dedicated Protect Areas Terms of Reference.
Retrieved from:
http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/planning_pdf/white/white_ToR.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, & Whitefeather Forest Management Corporation.
(2009b). Whitefeather Forest (Dedicated Protected Areas): Background Information.
Retrieved from:
http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/planning_pdf/white/background_info.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, & Whitefeather Forest Management Corporation.
(2012). 2012 – 2022 Forest Management Plan for the Whitefeather Forest – Final.
Retrieved from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources website:
http://www.appefmp.mnr.gov.on.ca/eFMP/file?fid=239357
Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: A multi-tiered diagnostic approach
for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation, 37(4), 451-463.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000834
Pikangikum First Nation. (2006). Keeping the Land: A Land use Strategy for the
Whitefeather Forest and Adjacent Areas. Retrieved from The Whitefeather Forest
20
website: http://www.whitefeatherforest.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/land-use-
strategy.pdf
Whitefeather Forest Management Corporation. (2013). Whitefeather Forest Management
Corporation. Retrieved May 22, 2013 from
http://www.whitefeatherforest.com/research/whitefeather-forest-management-
corporation/
21
Bibliography
Beckford, C. L., Jacobs, C., Williams, N., & Nahdee, R. (2010). Aboriginal Environmental
Wisdom, Stewardship, and Sustainability: Lessons from the Walpole Island first
Nations, Ontario, Canada. The Journal of Environmental Education, 41(4), 239-248.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/744024978?accountid=38794
Benidickson, J. (2009). Legal Framework for Protected Areas: Ontario (Canada). Retrieved
from the IUCN website http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ontario.pdf
Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Tomás, S. V. (2010). A review of design principles for community-
based natural resource management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 502. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/863571998?accountid=38794
Davidson-Hunt, I. (2006). Adaptive learning networks: Developing resource management
knowledge through social learning forums. Human Ecology, 34(4), 593-614.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9009-1
Hurley, M. (2009). Settling Comprehensive Land Claims. Parliamentary Information and
Research Service. Library of Parliament, Ottawa. Retrieved from
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0916-e.pdf
McGregor, D. (2009). Linking traditional knowledge and environmental practice in Ontario.
Journal of Canadian Studies, 43(3), 69-100,245. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/203559233?accountid=38794
Notzke, C. (1995). A new perspective in Aboriginal natural resource management: co-
management, Geoforum (26(2): 187-209. Retrieved from the cedar.wikispaces.com
website: http://cedar.wikispaces.com/file/view/Notzke.pdf
Paavola, J. (2008). Explaining Multi-Level Environmental Governance. Retrieved from
http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/Documents/research/sri/workingpapers/SRIPs-
10_01.pdf
Spielmann, R., & Unger, M. (2000). Towards a model of co-management of provincial parks
in Ontario. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 20(2), 455-486. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218100438?accountid=38794