Co-management and Operations Strategy at the Whitefeather Forest

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


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


(2009b). Whitefeather Forest (Dedicated Protected Areas): Background Information.

Retrieved from:

http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/planning_pdf/white/background_info.pdf


(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


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
