1

Establishing the Framework and Action Plan for a New BC First Nations Aquatic Resources Relationship with Other

Jurisdictions in Canada

A Report to the First Nations Fisheries Council

March 22nd, 2012

Written by: Marion Lefebvre / Miles Richardson / Alexandra Holland Submitted by: Marion Lefebvre, Vice-President, Aboriginal Governance Institute on Governance 60 George Street Ottawa, ON K1N 1J4 613.560.0090 phone 613.560.0097 fax mlefebvre@iog.ca

2

Table of Contents Establishing the Framework and Action Plan for a New First Nations Aquatic Resource Relationship with Other Jurisdictions in British Columbia .......................................................... 2 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 2 Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 Section 2: Background ............................................................................................................... 5 Section 3: FNFC Organizational Structure and Operations ........................................................ 8 Section 4: Relationship Building and Expanding FNFC Reach ................................................ 17 Section 5: Strategic Action Plan to Complement FNFC Governance Re-Positioning .............. 21 Section 6: Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 23 Annex A - First Nations Health Council ..................................................................................... 25 Annex B: BC First Nations Fisheries Council (FNFC) Interview Guide ...................................... 29 Annex C – Interview Response Summary ................................................................................. 31 Annex D: Index of Documents Consulted ................................................................................. 37 Annex E: Proposed Changes to Draft Council Member Handbook .......................................... 38 FNFC Charter ........................................................................................................................... 39

Establishing the Framework and Action Plan for a New First Nations Aquatic Resource Relationship with Other Jurisdictions in British Columbia

Executive Summary Earlier this year, the British Columbia First Nations Fisheries Council (FNFC) contracted the Institute on Governance to conduct an independent review of the FNFC’s organizational structure and to provide a report with recommendations. As well, the authors were to offer strategic advice to advance First Nation governance of aquatic resources in keeping with the expression of rights and title. This review was conducted through a document review and one-on-one confidential interviews with most Council members, several First Nation stakeholders, officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Executive Director of the FNFC, and three staff members. Finally, a brief case study of the governance arrangements and communications policies of the First Nations Health Council was also conducted. The governance review of the First Nations Fisheries Council has revealed many strengths of the current governance structure and processes of the organization, including a dedicated and committed staff, a high level of trust by key stakeholders, including First Nations, regional fisheries organizations, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and a high level of accountability and transparency. While these and many other strengths were continuously highlighted by interviewees, some key challenges were also identified. These challenges focused on Council outreach and representation, the role of rights and title in the First Nations Fisheries Council’s mandate, engagement with key funders such as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (including seeking funding beyond the Department of Fisheries and Oceans), differences in priorities within the First Nations communities being represented by the Fisheries Council, and the development of a long-term strategic vision. To address the organizational challenges identified in this report, the Institute on Governance makes the following recommendations:

1) To enhance the strategic direction and outreach roles of the Executive Council. This can be accomplished by:

a. The outreach role of Council members must be more emphasized in both recruitment and orientation;

b. Increase staff time to support communication strategies and tools (updates, newsletters, issue backgrounders) that can be used by Council members or staff in broader communications to better convey the mission, objectives, and actions of the FNFC in support of First Nations.

c. Use of the charter process with regional organizations to better articulate the outreach process in each area.

2) To develop a strategy to diversify and increase funding sources for the FNFC; 3) Consider limited staff growth, if resources allow (however, growth should be slow and

steady to maintain current exceptional performance levels); 4) Expand the focus on starting to claim the governance space that First Nations aspire to

occupy, in terms of moving to joint management of aquatic resources and habitat protection by broadening the scope of FNFC Tier 2 interactions at both the federal and provincial levels.

4

These organizational recommendations are outlined in more detail in the text which follows. However, the report also documents the considerable strengths in the governance mechanisms that already exist at various levels; for example, the individual First Nation and regional levels as well as the FNFC and the provincial political level of the Leadership Council. Therefore, there is significant opportunity to galvanize First Nation support for re-positioning these various governance structures into an integrated, comprehensive governance role that maximizes First Nation presence in aquatic resource management. Consequently, this report also provides a strategic action plan to aggressively move in this direction. The action plan emphasizes:

• Initiating a contact program to broaden the Tier 2 role of the FNFC and simultaneously expand its possible funding base;

• Undertake high profile, high value activities such as a standardized appointment process for DFO advisory processes that solidifies the FNFC role in executive management functions;

• Optimize governance re-positioning by expanding political exposure to the FNFC role through seizing opportunities for Ministerial/caucus briefings, Parliamentary Committee appearances, etc;

• Undertake a functional gap analysis, initially at the provincial level exclusively, that will provide the framework for a timely expansion of governance activities and resourcing requirements to take the FNFC to the next step in assumption of a joint management role.

Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Project Description Early in 2012, the First Nation Fisheries Council (FNFC) commissioned the Institute on Governance to undertake an organizational review of its structure, mandate, processes, and relationships to assess how it could best position itself to serve BC First Nations in their longstanding quest to achieve the full recognition and implementation of their rights and title with respect to all aspects of aquatic resource management and sustainable harvesting. As well, this study was intended to address the alignment of the FNFC’s strategic plan to the attainment of a staged, progressive advancement of First Nations’ interests during the 2012-2015 planning horizon. As a result, this study has attempted to capture the opportunities for evolving both the organization and its place within an integrated emerging FN aquatic governance system to meet the common objective of pursuing First Nation aspirations in the expression of their rights and title regarding this sector. 1.2 Methodology The methodology employed by the authors has been an extensive document review complemented by over twenty-five interviews of key stakeholders, including FNFC Executive Council Members, Regional FN Fisheries Organizations, staff and federal officials. The authors

5

wish to thank everyone who participated for the generous spirit with which they contributed their time and ideas to this project. Annexes B, C and D of this report encompass respectively the interview guide utilized in this initiative; a summary of interview findings and an index of documents consulted. Among several additional annexes is also included a case study of the First Nations Health Council (FNHC, found in Annex A) with a view to informing the evolution of the FNFC. 1.3 Governance Benchmarks The Institute on Governance (IOG) was pleased to be asked to conduct this work. The IOG is an independent, Canada-based, not-for-profit public interest institution with its head office in Ottawa and offices in Vancouver and Toronto. The Institute has extensive experience in exploring and developing approaches to responsible and responsive governance in Canada and abroad. The Institute’s goal is to promote and share good practices, and offer solutions and continuous improvements in the capacity of organizations to deliver on their mission. The Institute addresses governance from a number of directions, including Aboriginal, international, crown and organizational governance, specializing in innovation and modernizing government. The IOG perspective of governance is that it is a process whereby societies/entities make their important decisions, determine whom they involve and how they render account. In the case of an organization such as the FNFC, governance can be seen as the art of steering the organization through setting strategic goals, maintaining key relationships, safeguarding the overall health of the organization and rendering account for performance. The IOG believes that principles of good governance encompass vital attributes such as: legitimacy and voice; direction; performance; accountability and fairness. These attributes are largely derived from our interpretation of the nine principles of governance enunciated by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Section 3 of this report will assess the FNFC against these principles with the content of each being elaborated at that time. This assessment will be based on the key informants and will speak to both these stand-alone attributes but also to the interplay of these characteristics in combination to propel an organization to its best performance. The report will also consider the experience of another similar organization to determine if there are best practices to be potentially adapted to the FNFC’s needs. 1.4 Broader Environmental/Adaptive Strategic Planning Challenge The timing of this report is opportune. The FNFC will be operating during a time a significant change and uncertainty in the Pacific fisheries sector over the coming year. Developments such as DFO’s “Modernization Agenda”, the final report of the Cohen Commission, the further articulation of aquaculture policy, federal decisions regarding the renewal of PICFI and indeed the anticipated cut-backs to the federal government to be announced in the March 29, 2012 Federal Budget all may contribute to significant ramifications for FN involvement in both harvesting and management participation in this sector. As well, the coming three year planning horizon will include the assessment of a number of major resource development projects in which First Nations will need to advance informed and wherever possible, coordinated positions. Potential changes to the federal environmental

6

assessment process and possible re-alignment of responsibilities for fisheries habitat assessment within this context could also raise concerns for First Nation interests regarding resource protection. As a consequence, these issues will also have direct impacts on the FNFC’s role and priority setting. These external factors all contribute to the need for the FNFC to be highly adaptive and strategic in navigating what may be a tumultuous period in the fisheries sector. Most importantly, this broader environment could easily distract from the FNFC’s central mission by pushing and pulling its limited resources into a multitude of directions, unless this organization is performing at its best.

Section 2: Background 2.1 Origins of the First Nations Fisheries Council (FNFC) The genesis of the FNFC was the BC First Nations Fisheries Action Plan drafted in 2007 and endorsed by the First Nations Leadership Council. The Leadership Council is comprised of the First Nations Summit, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), and the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations (BCAFN). This document laid out an ambitious forward agenda that focused on eight principles to guide First Nations’ involvement in Pacific fisheries. These included: an ecosystem approach; conservation; sustainability; shared responsibility; accountability; diversity in approaches and benefits; First Nations’ ownership; and stewardship. A successor to an earlier organization (the BC Aboriginal Fisheries Commission), the Action Plan indicated that the FNFC would be “created to:

- Be responsible for implementing this Action Plan; - Hold regular province-wide fisheries forums and assemblies to increase open dialogue,

cooperation and support on fisheries issues; - Support regional or watershed-based forums and processes to deal with local and

regional issues; - Develop collective First Nations fisheries-related strategies and policy perspectives; - Share information on fisheries issues with BC First Nations and support improved data

collection and sharing; - Support First Nations in developing and implementing their fisheries and aquatic

resource plans; and - Build effective working relationships with First Nations, First Nations organizations

(provincial and national), governments, the media, and others”. Following initial striking of an interim FNFC organization in 2007, province-wide consultations among BC First Nations were held. The considerable feedback from this exercise led to refinements to both the executive structure and mandate of the FNFC, which were introduced in 2009 after approval at that year’s Fisheries Assembly and by subsequent resolution, by the First Nations Summit and UBCIC.

7

Most notable was the change to the Executive Council. This body originally had six representatives and evolved to fourteen representatives reflecting a network of fourteen Regions. These are: North Coast Haida Gwaii Central Coast Northern Vancouver Island Southeast Vancouver Island West Vancouver Island Lower Mainland/Lower Fraser Fraser Valley Mid-Fraser East Mid-Fraser West Upper Fraser Upper Skeena Transboundary-Yukon Transboundary-Columbia To compliment this representation, the membership of the FNFC would be deemed to be the 203 First Nations of the province who would each appoint delegates to participate in an annual Fisheries Assembly. The regions from which Council members are appointed are shown below:

8

With respect to the FNFC mandate, while still guided by the Action Plan, a more succinct articulation of key objectives was developed and approved. “The First Nations Fisheries Council works with and on behalf of BC First Nations to protect and reconcile First Nations rights and title as they relate to fisheries and the health and protection of aquatic resources. The Council will achieve this mandate by working to:

- Advance and protect First Nations title and rights related to fisheries and aquatic resources, including priority access for food, cultural and economic purposes;

- Support First Nations to build and maintain capacity related to fishing, planning, policy, law, management, and decision-making at a variety of scales (local, regional, national, international); and

- Facilitate discussions related to the development of a British Columbia-wide First

Nations-based collaborative management framework that recognizes and respects First Nations jurisdiction, management authority and responsibilities.”

2.2 FNFC’s Role within Tiers 1, 2, and 3 Processes In BC, there is a general understanding that the terms Tiers 1,2 and 3 refer to the authority to dialogue with various actors within a governance capacity. Tier 1 refers to dialogue that occurs among First Nations; Tier 2 between First Nations and other levels of government; and Tier 3 among First Nations and the broader range of nongovernmental interest groups or stakeholders in a particular subject area. The FNFC has put priority on Tier 1 and Tier 2 processes in its practice areas to date. As indicated in its mandate the prospect of a role in Tier 3 is definitely foreseen but does not have a concrete timetable as it would be dependent on the pace at which the clarification of respective roles within the Tier 1 and 2 context can be established. Another pressing reality is that without incremental resources to dedicate, a large-scale expansion into Tier 3 activity would be extremely challenging at this time. 2.3 Other Initiatives to Establish FNFC’s Internal Organizational Structure and Key

Relationships The FNFC has not remained static since 2009. Indeed it has grown organizationally through the appointment of a permanent Executive Director and a team of five professional staff. Bylaws have been updated to reflect the expansion of the Executive Council, annual funding arrangements have been negotiated with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and a Draft Procedural Handbook for Executive Council Members has been prepared. In the area of refining key relationships, the FNFC has been particularly active. In 2010, they entered into a “Commitment to Action and Results Agreement” with the Pacific Region of DFO that outlined mutual priorities and processes to make progress in these areas. Further, in 2011, a Declaration and Protocol document was signed with the First Nations Leadership Council that clarified respective roles and confirmed ongoing support.

9

Finally, in late 2011, initial discussions were launched with a number of regional First Nation fisheries organizations to enter into charter agreements. These documents would seek to clarify roles and leverage respective strengths. In a very concrete way, they would begin the empowerment of a comprehensive-multi layered BC First Nations governance structure that addresses aquatic resources conservation and sustainable harvesting and the respectful expression of First Nation rights and title to such resources. Taken together, the integrative measures introduced by the FNFC have started the building of the collaborative management framework encouraged in their mandate from the Leadership Council. Against this backdrop of progressive change, whereby the FNFC has systematically refined its key Tier 1 and Tier 2 relationships, it has also performed a number of significant tasks over the last 18 months, such as participation in the four DFO joint working groups, the organization of a legal conference and the conduct of a detailed analysis of interaction within Fraser First Nations fisheries entities. This is an impressive list of achievements for an organization that has only recently grown to a staff of six, including the Executive Director. In the interest of further improving an already solid, well-disciplined organization, this report will, in the successive three sections, address three distinct topics. The first topic will be the fine tuning of the FNFC organization itself; the second, will be elaborating on the relationships and linkages that would allow the FNFC to form part of an integrated comprehensive BC First Nations governance structure for aquatic resources if so desired by its principals; and, the third, will be the key priorities that can be considered as part of the strategic planning process to advance the fisheries management governance framework discussed and, by so doing, reinforce the broad rights, title and governance objectives of BC First Nations in this jurisdiction. Section 3: FNFC Organizational Structure and Operations As indicated earlier in this report, the organizational integrity of the FNFC will be assessed against broad principles of good governance to offer guidance with respect to potential changes or refinements that may be considered in future. These principles are: legitimacy and voice; direction; performance; accountability; and finally, fairness.

3.1 Legitimacy and Voice The intent of these principles is to ensure that the organization strives for a strong sense of group cohesion and emphasizes consensus rather than simple majority rule. This is particularly needed in the instance of an entity such as the FNFC that has a prominent advocacy function. While not directly representative of BC First Nations, FNFC must nevertheless be seen to be a credible source of advocacy. Therefore it must be perceived to be attuned to First Nation priorities and concerns in this area of jurisdiction as they manifest differently throughout BC. Throughout our interviews, we were assured by the broad range of respondents that the FNFC listened, was connected effectively within the Tier 1 role, and had indeed made considerable progress in this area over the past 18 months. The AGM, the bi-weekly phone calls, the formalization of the Protocol with the Leadership Council and the recent initiation of the

10

outreach to regional fisheries organizations through the charter process, all were seen as progressive measures to validate both the FNFC’s understanding and advocacy of First Nation positions. There was however identified some desire for the FNFC to have an increasing direct connection to the over two hundred First Nations in BC. In spite of this assertion, there was general recognition that in an organization of this size that is a virtually impossible goal. Instead, an interim measure could be to enhance the outreach of the Executive Council within their respective areas. To do so, three steps are required. Firstly, the outreach role of Council members must be more emphasized in both recruitment and orientation (the Draft Handbook). Annex E highlights potential changes to this document to reflect proposed modifications to the Council members’ role and responsibilities. As well, the distinct incremental roles of those Council members who are named Directors in terms of the broader administrative operations of the organization are also clarified. The current number and scope of Council meetings (monthly) could be curtailed to a maximum of six focused on broad strategic direction to allow time for overcommitted Council members to increase their outreach activities within their regions. Lastly, increased staff time will be needed to support communication tools (updates, newsletters, issue backgrounders) that can be routinely used by Council members or staff. In the instance that greater resources are secured and additional staff is retained, Tier 1 communications would be a logical priority. As well, in that context, locating some staff members outside of Vancouver could facilitate outreach in a cost-effective manner, an approach that has been met with success in the case of the First Nations Health Council (please see Annex A for further details). As a matter of general practice it will be important as new activities are assumed that any requests for work by staff by Council members be routed through the Executive Director. With respect to Tier 2 activities, the FNFC was certainly viewed by respondents to be credible and responsible in its advocacy. The signing of the 2010 “Commitment to Action and Results” with DFO is a practical demonstration of this. However, concerns were expressed in interviews with DFO participants about enhancing the level of connection the FNFC had with individual First Nations. Consequently, it is apparent that efforts to solidify its legitimacy and voice in this regard will have additional substantial spin-off benefits in terms of dealings at the Tier 2 level and ultimately Tier 3 should such activities be undertaken by FNFC in future. 3.2 Direction A key principle of good governance is the ability for an organization to set direction that is responsive to challenges and opportunities in the broader environment while adhering to organizational priorities that underline their longer-term fundamental objectives. In effect, this principle is about an organization’s strategic ability to be agile and adaptable while remaining centered on its core mission. Our interviews and document review indicate that FNFC is regarded to be very proficient in this area. There was broad familiarity with their Strategic Plan and strong belief that the direction outlined was appropriate.

11

A challenge that can be anticipated in the future however did emerge at an earlier stage in our discussions. While FNFC has succeeded in remaining focused on a First Nation rights and title agenda, its primary Tier 2 interface with DFO is frequently oriented towards capacity building or economic performance topics, as these are the topics that DFO does not directly align with rights and title. DFO officials frequently indicated that they play an operational role and are not responsible for interpreting aboriginal rights and title. This signifies a considerable hurdle to achieve a congruency of vision with DFO, nonetheless, it should not deter FNFC adherence to its central mission. However, it also speaks to potentially broadening the range of its Tier 2 interactions to maximize the audience for a rights and title agenda and over time influence DFO’s perspective in this regard. It also presents the opportunity of speaking to a full range of habitat, ecosystem and sustainability issues related to water and aquatic resources with a spectrum of federal and provincial government parties and in so doing, increases possible funding partners for the FNFC. 3.3 Performance As implied by the title, performance in the context of good governance, speaks to an organization’s ability to be efficient, effective and above all seen to be focused on the priorities and values of its principals. Our interviews strongly affirmed the high performance level of the FNFC. Staff were seen to be highly committed and informed. Frequently, interviewees would stress that staff members were stretched to the limit. They also indicated that all FNFC officials were respectful of other organizations and extremely professional in their dealings within both the Tier 1 and 2 contexts. The Council was seen to be still in the process of “finding their voice” but were seen to have potential to develop into a strong advocacy instrument for First Nations. In the face of this feedback, the only refinements that can be suggested is that the organization is ready to grow if resources allow. However, growth should be slow and steady to maintain current exceptional performance levels. As well, critical decisions will have to be taken about allocation of scarce resources to certain activities. There was some concern expressed in interviews about the lack of productive outcomes associated with several existing joint working groups with DFO given the intensity of FNFC resource utilization. Scaling back in this area will allow more focus on other elements of the emerging Strategic Plan, including outreach activities. 3.4 Accountability This element of governance speaks to both the transparency of an organization’s operations and rendering account to a variety of interests, but primarily to the organization’s principals. Once again, the interviews conducted reinforced the strength of FNFC’s current accountability mechanisms. The Annual General Assembly (AGA) to which all BC First Nations are invited is seen to be effective. The biweekly calls that speak to current fisheries issues and developments on major projects were seen to be an essential, recognized and practical component of an accountability framework. Finalizing the Protocol with the Leadership Council and launching

12

the Charter process with regional organizations is setting the stage for incremental accountability mechanisms with these key partners. On a separate track, FNFC has been recognized by DFO as providing full accountability in terms of compliance with the terms of its contribution agreement. As a consequence, it is now positioned to enter a multi-year funding arrangement. The only concern that was highlighted in interviews was ultimately, what incremental accountability mechanisms could be instituted to connect the FNFC to the 203 First Nations throughout British Columbia. While this point is very relevant, there are several caveats that should be cited. Firstly, in the next section, we will discuss the FNFC from the vantage point of forming part of a more comprehensive First Nations governance entity and look at accountability within that perspective. Secondly, the FNFC remains a small organization with limited resourcing and therefore by necessity, must set realistic goals with respect to incremental measures in this regard. Nonetheless, to the extent that the Executive Council appointment process can be seen to more closely link the appointee to his/her area and that clearer expectations of Council member involvement and staff support for more regular outreach measures into First Nations (for example: newsletters; special topic communiqués; surveys) can be established, these measurements represent a very positive step to be taken to address this consideration. 3.5 Fairness

Finally, a last principle of good governance is the creation and maintenance of a sense of fairness and equity among principals. This can be in part supported through codes of conduct and conflict of interest guidelines but in the instance of the FNFC must also reflect a much more fundamental factor of whether First Nations generally see their interests being advanced in an even-handed manner without regional or tribal preference. This is a complex issue in this context because there has traditionally been a lack of alignment between the fisheries interests of coastal vs. inland First Nations. Further, there is the complicating reality of different traditions, access and entitlements among First Nations. It was, however, noted by several interviewees that there are massive discrepancies that still exist between First Nations in British Columbia. There remains a significant division between community fishing interests and commercial fishing who are First Nations members. The FNFC must determine how it will represent fishing interests in a manner that is inclusive and lowers the current barriers to developing common positions. Working on a measure to obtain input from the Native Brotherhood and other such organizations is therefore a very constructive step to be taken by the FNFC. Nonetheless, our interviews revealed that there is a broad perception that the FNFC is very balanced in its advocacy. There is also a recognition that they moved to a larger Council structure in 2010, which thereby provides a more representative cross-section of First Nation interests. Should the full roster of Executive Council appointments be put in place, any identified issue of potential underrepresentation cited by respondents will be addressed. It is very important that the FNFC continue to maintain this balanced performance of its mandate. In future, for example, it may be necessary in an expanded mandate under a more advanced governance framework, to have a First Nations governance entity capable of

13

mediating or developing and administering guidelines for resource sharing dispute resolution for First Nation issues that go beyond the individual watershed or a regional fisheries organization’s ambit. This role, while not enviable, should not be ultimately left under DFO’s administration. However, it will only be able to be assumed if the credibility of new authority commands the respect of the majority of First Nations. 3.6 Other Noteworthy Observations on the FNFC Organization Cited by Respondents Participants in the interviews were, in general, highly complimentary of the FNFC’s organizational structure and development since its creation. Overall, they were of the opinion that the FNFC is on a solid path, is seen as credible and accountable, with a strong mandate and strategic direction. All respondents cited the critical issue of how the FNFC can represent all 203 First Nations in BC – although a significant number acknowledged that the FNFC is doing a credible job of this currently. Other key issues discussed by respondents: Working together with other regional fisheries organizations: Respondents often cited that issues still remain with other organizations – region or issue based ones. The questions remain as to how to work together, and recognizing where there is overlap. Regional representatives and communication in communities: Communication has been somewhat of an issue for the FNFC, claimed some stakeholders and DFO respondents, as each regional representative has the responsibility to report out and communicate out to their communities. Information sharing could perhaps be made easier by having information in writing, to be disseminated at locations within the community. Many acknowledged that there will always be discrepancies between regional representatives and how much information is actually disseminated out to constituents. The FNFC will have to strike a balance between how much of a focus they place on nitty-gritty issues like this, and overall communications. Working with DFO and different mandates: Many DFO respondents said that all parties must look at where there are overlapping interests, which currently means sustainable fisheries, capacity development, and facilitating a more collaborative framework. A respondent at DFO’s sentiments towards the working groups mirrored many stakeholders and Council Members opinions, saying the working groups are “somewhat of an anachronism”; a bit uneven, and DFO is a bit unhappy with them and how they function. In the same vein, a First Nations stakeholder said that they don’t think that the working groups are yielding results that will be in the best interest of First Nations. Although they were put together with excellent intentions, they have not been met with the same level of commitment by DFO. The focus of the FNFC currently: Several respondents said that they felt that the FNFC is currently in ‘reactionary’ mode – that they can only react to policy put forth by DFO, due to their internal focus on governance and limited resourcing. Considerations Identified through Comparison to Other Similar Organizations:

14

Beyond assessment of this organization’s overall performance and positioning against broad principles of good governance, another practical measuring stick is to compare it to similar organizations to determine if there are best practices or lessons to be learned from these entities directly applicable to the FNFC’s current status. In interviews, the example of the First Nations Health Council (FNHC) was raised on several occasions and as a consequence, this report will focus briefly on how the longer experience of the FNHC may hold some useful direction for the FNFC. 3.7 The First Nations Health Council: A Comparison to the FNFC

The First Nations Health Council was formed through the Transformative Change Accord of 2005, a tripartite agreement signed by the Province of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, and the First Nations Leadership Council. As the organization has evolved since its inception in 2005, the following documents have played integral roles in shaping the FNHC:

o The Leadership Accord (2005) o The New Relationship (2005) o The First Nations Health Blueprint (2005) o The Transformative Change Accord (2005) o The Transformative Change Accord: First Nations Health Plan (2006) o Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (2006) o Tripartite First Nations Health Plan (2007)

With it’s founding, the province, federal government, and First Nations Leadership Council agreed to the following vision, to be implemented through collaborative action:

“The collective vision of the Province of BC, the Government of Canada and the First Nations Leadership Council is that the health and well-being of First nations is improved, the gaps in health between First Nations people and other British Columbians are closed and First Nations are fully involved in decision making regarding the health of their peoples.”

This vision has been expounded further in agreements like the Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (2006). The FNHC was tasked with “the challenge of ensuring ongoing engagement with First Nations communities, while maintaining a focus on advocacy with government leaders.” Their mandate, however, is not to speak for First Nations, but rather to advocate the vision set forth by First Nations in the Tripartite First Nations Health Plan (TPFNHP). The FNHC’s external relationships to its partners is demonstrated below:

15

Although there are agreements in place regarding shared vision and goals, funding remains somewhat uncertain for the FNHC. Prior to 2009-10, there was no pre-determined funding in place for the time required to implement the TFNHP. In 2009-10, however, FNHC Council members were able to secure a 10 year commitment from the Province of British Columbia, amounting to $83.5 million dollars through to 2019-20. This was matched with a 4 year funding contract by the federal government, totaling $29 million dollars, which expired in 2010-11. The FNHC categorizes this funding as ‘inconsistent’, and states that it is restricting the strategic vision of the organization, limiting it to short-term projects due to funding uncertainty. Much like the FNFC, communication has been deemed an essential part of outreach and engagement for the FNHC; they have sought to develop communication tools to increase engagement with all 203 First Nations and regional organizations in BC. They have, however, developed strategies that differ from those of the FNFC to meet the challenges of such broad outreach. Through the establishment of the First Nations Health Directors Association (FNHDA), health directors and community organizations are able to engage and participate in the design and implementation of services for their region. One way in which this is achieved is through the establishment of Community Engagement Hubs, created to better communicate on the TFNHP, to better collaborate between First Nations community organizations and health authorities, and to help communities themselves in health planning and organization.

Thus, the similar backgrounds of the founding of the FNHC and the FNFC make for useful comparison (with further details as to the FNHC’s outreach and stakeholder engagement to be found in Annex A) as to the development of differing organizational structures and governance

16

mechanisms. Both have origins in First Nations Leadership Council discussions and agreements from the 2005-6 period, resulting in remaining connections and ties to the Leadership Council.

Similarly, both had somewhat different compositions when initially formed. When first created in 2007, the Health Council structure mirrored the composition of the Leadership Council. This meant that the UBCIC had three representatives, as did the FNS, and BCAFN one representative. Since 2007, its structure has shifted significantly, with the First Nations Chiefs’ Health Committee (FNCHC) being dissolved and all staff and resources being allocated to the FNHC. In 2010, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs passed a resolution that called for the restructuring of the FNHC. This would require moving from the 7 member association based appointments to one that is comprised of 15 regional representatives. The regions are as follows:

• Fraser • Interior • Vancouver Coastal • North • Vancouver Island

With this new structure, each region appoints three representatives to a two-year mandate on the Council. Each member is appointed through their region’s own processes, and is “responsible for reporting to First Nations in their region, accountable for progress and processes at all levels, representation, and ensuring that ratification processes and decision making process that are community driven and Nation based.” The FNFC has also experienced such a shift, previously described in the Background section of this report. An expanded Council, with representation divided geographically, and with representatives nominated from within the regions, meant increased opportunity for outreach and demonstrating accountability to stakeholders.

17

Current FNHC Structure:

Accountability and outreach are cornerstones for both the FNFC and FNHC. As both are advocates for all 203 First Nations in BC, both must consistently try to engage an enormous group of constituents. This provides challenges in terms of the difficulty of maintaining a presence in a region, due to costs and geography, and the demands it makes on Council members to ensure outreach occurs consistently and is accessible. The FNHC has employed regional Community Development Liaisons, a network of Hubs, and varying technology like YouTube to meet this challenge; the FNFC has developed similar mechanisms, but lacks the funding to provide regional support staff throughout BC. This is perhaps the most significant difference in outreach between the two organizations – the ability to provide support staff, employed by the FNHC, to act as a bridge between the FNHC and regional organizations, to deal with immediate and short-term health issues, and to help develop long-term strategic vision implementation.

Annex A outlines a case study of the major developmental steps taken by the FNHC since its inception. It has been included to better illustrate several areas of best practice that may be of particular interest to the FNFC given their current stage of development and resource base. In conclusion, based on all the assessment inputs, the FNFC is a high functioning new organization that is evolving to better fulfill the expectations of its principals. Areas that could benefit from some refinement going forward include:

- Moving the role of the Executive Council more toward input on strategic direction (lowering the number of meetings to 4 to 6 a year) and on FNFC outreach to respective regions;

18

- Within resource capacity, have staff increase support to Council on outreach in terms of production of new tools targeted First Nations. Measures taken by the FNHC could be helpful in this regard.

- Putting a priority on increasing and diversifying the funding base in order to be able to fully reflect the rights and title mission of the FNFC without being deflected into activities less central to its mandate.

- Expanding the Tier 2 interactions of the FNFC, particularly to open dialogue on the broad range of habitat elements related to the sustainability agenda that is central to the FNFC’s mandate.

These refinements have all been considered by FNFC officials at various times but have had to await progress on other more fundamental developmental activities. However, the FNFC’s evolution is now sufficiently advanced for these priorities to be pursued in accordance with available resources. Both the broadened Tier 2 initiatives and the heightened support for community level outreach, when viewed as incremental to current work on regional charters, would suggest that the FNFC should contemplate an expansion of current staffing. Given the cohesiveness and professionalism now exhibited, it is important that staff build-up is done slowly to allow for highly selective recruitment. As permitted by funding and approval of an expanded work plan in accordance with the strategic plan, the FNFC should consider a growth of up to ten to twelve staff over the next three years. This would allow for critical mass on key issues while still ensuring an overall organization that is agile, that leverages technical capacity from regional organizations and that enhances rather than duplicates skill sets in this subject matter on behalf of First Nations.

Section 4: Relationship Building and Expanding FNFC Reach

This section of the report will address two distinct elements of relationship building. The first and the highest priority is the interconnections that the FNFC can make with its Tier 1 partners and principals to move to the next level of emergent governance institution building regarding BC First Nations management capacity for aquatic resources. The second is the subsequent repositioning of the FNFC in its expanded Tier 2 outreach and eventual assumption of Tier 3 activities. 4.1 Governance Institution Making

In creating the institutional framework that will support First Nation assumption of a true joint management role on aquatic resources, there is a critical decision to be made. Is it better to start from a clear slate and create a governance structure from scratch or should one build on existing structures and make adjustments to fit a new role with appropriate responsibilities, authorities and accountabilities. In the case of aquatic resources in BC the choice is clear. Since 1990 with the pivotal Sparrow Judgment and the introduction of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) in 1992, management capacity has been developed by both individual First Nations and tribal organizations. Subsequent DFO programming such as AAROM introduced in 2006 and some components of PICFI have expanded First Nation and regional access to technical expertise and involvement in integrated resource planning activities.

19

Consequently, in many areas, very sophisticated and long-standing organizational capacity has emerged at the regional level to support the advancement of the rights and title aspirations regarding both the management and utilization of aquatic resources by the First Nation communities, whom are affiliated with these organizations. It is clearly asserted by these organizations that the First Nations they serve are the holders of jurisdiction and nothing in their operation changes this reality. This principle would have to be a fundamental element of any more expansive First Nation governance framework proposed for aquatic resources. With the coalesce of provincial First Nation political organizations into the Leadership Council and the subsequent direction to both establish the FNFC (2007) and later refine its structure and mandate (2009), it is very clear that, the critical mass of an effective First Nation aquatic resources governance mechanism for BC is already largely in place through the myriad of regional organizations now in existence. This proposition was largely identified in the graphic below that was originally presented at a presentation on the FNFC’s Strategic Plan given at the 2011 AGA.

The challenge at this juncture is for the FNFC to articulate the vision of the governance mechanism as a whole as it spans from the First Nation to the Leadership Council and to identify the gaps in governance capacity and an action plan to fill these gaps as a critical priority of their go forward agenda. 4.2 First Nation Aquatic Resources Governance Mechanism In taking the next step in governance evolution, the following chart illustrates the potential structure of the emerging governance mechanism, building on existing partnerships and capacities.

20

It is important to emphasize once again that nothing in this formalization of a governance structure undermines the jurisdictional integrity of the First Nation rights and titleholders. Instead this structure enhances the full realization of rights by – at increasingly collective levels – supporting their articulation through technical, administrative, policy and political input and expression. While the regional organizations will remain the key operational interface, the FNFC must be the lynch pin for integrating regional perspectives, coordinating and consolidating policy and providing timely and informed strategic advice to political leadership in the advocacy of such rights. It is the authors’ view that the FNFC has, through the Declaration and Protocol document, and the launching of the Charter initiative, taken the steps necessary at this time to credibly position the whole interconnected structure cited above as the FN governance mechanism for aquatic resources. Clearly, after further development of the charter process, it will be opportune to reconsider the current Executive Council appointment process to determine if there should be a stronger political linkage at the regional level. Formal changes in this area should logically await several years operation of the current Council to solidify its newly defined role before any further evolution is advanced. Where the FNFC can make further progress right now is in gap analysis for its role in moving into a comprehensive governance role from an advocacy role. Issues that quickly come to mind, consistent with the FNFC’s emerging role would include: consideration of a FN integrated harvest plan; formalization and oversight of a nomination process for FN appointments to Tier 3 processes; coordinating advisory support to such appointees; establishing mediation and dispute

21

resolution processes for inter-regional resource sharing disputes and initiating the broader Tier 2 interactions that allow a robust dialogue regarding habitat protection to be engaged. Many of these activities are already anticipated in the current Strategic Plan. 4.3 FNFC Reach Beyond Tier 1 A key to elevating the comprehensive array of First Nation management participation/advocacy entities currently existing into an integrated governance structure is the representation of this structure to its current and expanding range of Tier 2 partners. Documentation outlining its evolution to date, the intended, fully integrated structure and the anticipated capacity growth at respective levels should be prepared to acquaint federal and provincial officials of the emerging responsibilities of the FNFC and the entire emerging management regime. To reinforce this message effectively, presentations in this regard should be targeted at both the senior bureaucratic and political levels (accompanied by Leadership Council membership) to eventually gain the traction that the FNHC has achieved in these domains. In the federal arena, contacts should be extended to AANDC, Environment Canada, CEAA, NRCan and Health Canada. Not all will represent intensive outreach efforts but the first three should be engaged around the sectoral First Nations self-government agenda as well as the broader habitat protection role that the FNFC wish to assume for BC First Nations. In terms of BC, the outreach into the provincial government should largely parallel the federal side. The Ministries of Agriculture and Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Environment and Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation should be contacted with the expectation of opening dialogue around First Nations concerns in their spheres of responsibilities. While such outreach will be time consuming, the main Tier 2 interaction for the FNFC will remain focused on DFO. At this time, DFO does not share the First Nation vision of a joint management responsibility for fish resources. Therefore, the FNFC will have to work diligently to “occupy the space” of a governance institution rather than an advocacy organization to bring its federal co-managers into this framework over time. It should not be deterred by potential challenges to its “representation” of all 203 First Nations. An explanation of its increasing community outreach and the respective roles of each First Nation partner organization within the comprehensive structure should refute such challenges. The Leadership Council can, if necessary, reinforce for government officials, that First Nations are empowered to choose how to represent their own interests, and the FNFC and its partner organizations in an integrated governance structure represents such a choice. In terms of Tier 3 activities, this will be a logical step for the FNFC after it has repositioned itself at the Tier 2 level. It can start indirectly through the FNFC’s role in formalizing appointment processes and providing advice to representatives. It can also include outreach to academic institutions and NGOs to leverage additional funding and professional/scientific expertise to strengthen its policy role. In summary, the handicap of divergent positions regarding the nature and scope of the First Nation management role in fisheries between First Nations and DFO is significant. However, the longstanding intransigence of the federal position in this regard coupled with the ambitious change agenda launched by DFO with respect to fisheries legislation and policy in 2012, speaks to a pressing need for BC First Nations to start fully occupying this governance field. To do so will require the FNFC to support the “connective tissue” that animates a governance

22

regime that is largely already in place. It will further require a repositioning of the whole governance chain with a more extensive Tier 2 outreach. Finally, it will also translate into a specific action plan that, within the limitation of current resourcing, highlights activities that profile the management role First Nations aspire to achieve and solidifies support and coordination at every level of Tier 1 interactions.

Section 5: Strategic Action Plan to Complement FNFC Governance Re-Positioning

This section will address the strategic action plan that logically flows from a conceptual frame of re-profiling the FNFC into an integrated governance context beyond an advocacy role. The proposed priority actions outlined herein, are all perceived to be consistent with the current FNFC Strategic Plan and the strategic directions outlined therein under the headers of: Protection of Sustainable Fisheries, Capacity Development, Enhanced Economic Performance and Strategic Outreach. These activities are arrayed in three inter-related categories. First, those actions which will assist in the short-term refinement of existing operations; second, activities which support the re-positioning of FNFC as part of a First Nations aquatic resources governance structure, and thirdly; functional gap analysis that speaks to longer term assumption of key responsibilities that flesh out the potential FNFC governance role in a robust and thoughtful manner. 5.1 Short Term Refinements To underpin an aggressive change agenda for the FNFC, it will be necessary to ensure the strongest possible bond is forged among all the layers that comprise First Nation governance in this sector. As a consequence, it is a first priority to formalize changes to the role of the Executive Council. By focusing their role on strategic direction and outreach to both their regions and to the Leadership Council, they will be able to contribute significantly to overall progress on this initiative. As a complement to enable the Council’s outreach, FNFC staff should set a priority on developing and implementing new outreach tools to best convey the mission, objectives, and actions of the FNFC in support of First Nations. This can best be achieved through the development of regional advisory boards, through the charter agreements currently under development by the FNFC. Within these agreements, regional organizations would agree to participate in a formal advisory committee comprised of all major First Nations fisheries organizations in the area. This would be essential in areas where there are numerous interests (tribal, commercial versus community fishing, etc.) in one region. This would allow for real connections to regional organizations to develop, and for communities and First Nations to see increased participation in the FNFC, through regular meetings with their Regional Council member. Finally, an essential refinement will be to develop a strategy to diversify and increase funding sources for the FNFC. This is needed to insulate the FNFC from potential program cuts in one Department and to find backing for the full expression of the First Nations vision of resource management.

23

5.2 Re-Positioning the FNFC as part of an Integrated Governance Mechanism As considerable progress has been made on establishing key connections across Tier 1 partners, the focus for the FNFC can, if desired, shift to starting to claim the governance space that First Nations aspire to occupy in terms of moving to joint management of aquatic resources and habitat protection. The following activities are highlighted because they both advance the substantive FNFC mission but also encourage external recognition of where the FNFC intends to move. Priorities in this regard include: • Develop a strategy for expanding Tier 2 interactions into relevant provincial jurisdictions

and initiate contacts at the senior bureaucratic level to set the stage for a well-crafted political initiative led by the Leadership Council.

• Similarly, the FNFC should develop a comparable strategy for expanded contacts into the federal government focused on such features as the integrated governance approach and the environmental content of their mission. Part of both of these governmental relations priorities will require the creation of communication tools that speak to the governance structure as a whole and the intended evolution of functionalities to fulfill First Nations expectations of a robust role in resource management.

• Continued work on the development and articulation of a First Nations integrated fisheries management plan as well as a First Nations appointment process for all nominations to fill DFO appointments to the plethora of international, national and regional advisory processes that influence Pacific fisheries. These activities are key to establishing a platform that provides a clear illustration of the integrated governance role that the FNFC can perform. These tangible actions highlight the “value added” of FNFC to both First Nations and DFO and will galvanize all parties into a clearer understanding of why they should support the FNFC’s continued evolution in concert with the entirety of the governance mechanism of which they form part.

• Finally, in the realm of re-positioning the FNFC and in advancement of all the initiatives cited above, a strategy should be developed to expand political exposure. This would logically be a collaboration with the Leadership Council and should seize opportunities for Ministerial briefings, caucus briefings, appearances before appropriate Parliamentary and Senate Committees. Establishing a presence at this level is a vital part of re-positioning and will help to facilitate bureaucratic recognition of the FNFC’s emerging status.

5.3 Functional Gap Analysis

While the authors believe that the overall First Nation management capacity exhibited at various levels regarding fisheries complimented by the coordination/integration role played by the FNFC, provides the basis for proceeding in a governance role, it is also clear that due to a lack of resources and institutional capacity at this juncture, not all joint management roles could be fully assumed immediately. Therefore, a priority in this context is the eventual conduct of a functional gap analysis that can determine a critical path for the performance of new responsibilities and the requisite resourcing needed to support specific functionalities across all levels of the governance mechanism. A number of specific areas to be considered in such a gap analysis based on interviews and the broader external environment are:

24

• Establishment of policy principles for sharing arrangements between First Nations and other harvesters;

• Dispute Resolution processes to mediate harvest conflicts among First Nations that are intertribal or interregional in nature;

• Scope of scientific capacity required to support First Nations aquatic resources joint management;

• Working with regional organizations, establishing a proposed base standard for scope of operations for these organizations;

• Review of the appointment process of Executive Council members and relationship to Leadership Council to strengthen accountability to First Nations;

• Determination of options for scope and timing of Tier 3 role for FNFC and other governance levels;

• Consideration of potential eventual expansion to fish and wildlife mandate to maximize economies of scale of management costs;

• Estimate of resource requirements to support these expanded activities at respective governance levels on an ongoing basis.

Ultimately, the purpose of the functional gap analysis would be to establish for the consideration and approval of First Nations leadership a detailed go forward strategy for incremental joint management phased over an extended period as resources permit. In summary, the priority actions depicted in this section speak to a comprehensive approach to a change agenda that strengthens organizational outreach, affirms First Nations expectations of an expanding joint management role and responsibly projects a growth strategy that reinforces this intent. Setting this course is challenging and not without risk. DFO may find taking this position difficult, as the Department is currently the primary funder across all levels. This reality will have to be considered as part of strategic planning surrounding whether to proceed in this fashion now, or to await a more opportune time in the future. Section 6: Conclusions The authors have tried through our analysis to fairly assess the opportunities for the FNFC to play a vital role in advancing First Nation interests in all the objectives that have been endorsed by the Leadership Council. It is important to recognize that these objectives were directly generated by consultative input from community engagement between 2007 and 2011. They represent longstanding aspirations, grounded in a robust interpretation of the rights held by those jurisdictions. The pivotal recommendation of this report is to recognize and capitalize on the governance capacity at all levels that exists; consolidate this capacity, through collaborative and integrative measures; and finally start to occupy the governance space of the joint management authority for aquatic resources that First Nations intend to establish.

25

By expanding Tier 2 outreach, and by making coordinated programs on management measures that are high value to both First Nations and DFO, the case is being made on both the political and operational level to support the First Nation position. Clearly, the governance space that can be taken up now is limited and will be dependent on successful engagement at all levels, incremental resourcing and careful analysis and planning for the capacity to assume greater responsibilities. These factors make setting a precise timetable for progress out of reach. As cited earlier in this report, an alternative strategy could be that any re-positioning should await further capacity acquisitions and development of a comprehensive plan and timetable for rolling out the incremental assumption of a management role. Yet another approach would be to simply continue the current practice, and await either political or legal developments that will further the adoption of a management approach by the federal government. However, immediate action in this regard is supported by two key factors:

1) DFO is proceeding with an ambitious legislative and policy agenda that could impact First Nation rights and options for their expression in the short-term; 2) Regional organizations are ay varying levels of capacity, and therefore have varying ability to respond to the DFO agenda.

This scenario speaks to re-positioning to allow the FNFC to be as effective as possible in addressing DFO’s agenda and helping to equalize and complement the input of all the organizations and the First Nations that constitute both their and the FNFC’s membership. The timing is also opportune to create the First Nations governance environment where regional organizations that are significantly growing their management powers now can continue to advance and the FNFC can help model and track their ‘best practices’ to support the evolution of the other emerging regions. By eventually creating a ‘base’ level of capacity where desired, incremental exercise of management powers on a comprehensive level can be more readily achieved without holding back short-term progress for any organization. The proposed measures are bold, but the strength of the FNFC suggests that this is a governance transformation that is within this organization’s grasp.

Annex A - First Nations Health Council Throughout the interviews conducted by the IOG, stakeholders, staff, and Council members cited the work of the First Nations Health Council as a potential benchmark or ‘best practice’ to be examined by the FNFC. This annex provides a more detailed overview of some of their community engagement initiatives and tripartite relationships. Background and founding When first formed in 2007, the decision to create the First Nations Health Council (FNHC) was done through the creation of a Council that initially mirrored the composition of the Leadership Council. This meant that the UBCIC had three representatives, as did the FNS, and BCAFN one representative. Since 2007, its structure has shifted significantly, with the First Nations Chiefs’ Health Committee (FNCHC) being dissolved and all staff and resources being allocated to the FNHC. Terms of Reference were also developed in 2007. Originally, the FNHC’s focus had been primarily on governance and strategic vision, but by 2008, it was deemed to have evolved beyond the policies, procedures, and infrastructure originally set out at the First Nations Summit in 2005. With this, the FNHC established the First Nations Health Society to act as its corporate governance and operational arm; additionally, a three-year strategic plan (for 2009-12) was developed and priorities were set. Key documents As the organization has evolved since its inception in 2005, the following documents have played integral roles in shaping the FNHC:

o The Leadership Accord (2005) o The New Relationship (2005) o The First Nations Health Blueprint (2005) o The Transformative Change Accord (2005) o The Transformative Change Accord: First Nations Health Plan (2006) o Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (2006) o Tripartite First Nations Health Plan (2007)

Relationship to regional First Nations and organizations Initial Strategic Plan First Nations are kept informed by the Health Council through several means, all with the goal of facilitating accessibility and disseminating information quickly to communities. This includes the FNHC website, quarterly newsletters, email blasts and updates on new or emerging issues, and community liaison personnel, Gathering Wisdom forums, and the FNHC YouTube channel. Through the establishment of the First Nations Health Directors Association (FNHDA), health directors and community organizations are able to engage and participate in the design and implementation of services for their region. One way in which this is achieved is through the establishment of Community Engagement Hubs, created to better communicate on the TFNHP, to better collaborate between First Nations community organizations and health authorities, and to help communities themselves in health planning and organization.

27

During the organization’s first two years, building a model of community engagement was a key issue for the FNHC. Building on this, the FNHC decided to identify examples of First Nations best practices to acknowledge or highlight examples of community development or innovation to share amongst First Nations. Restructuring and Representation In 2010, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs passed a resolution that called for the restructuring of the FNHC. This would require moving from the 7 member association based appointments to one that is comprised of 15 regional representatives. The regions are as follows:

• Fraser • Interior • Vancouver Coastal • North • Vancouver Island

With this new structure, each region appoints three representatives to a two-year mandate on the Council. Each member is appointed through their region’s own processes, and is “responsible for reporting to First Nations in their region, accountable for progress and processes at all levels, representation, and ensuring that ratification processes and decision making process that are community driven and Nation based.”1 Engaging Regional Organizations The First Nations Health Directors Association (FNHDA) was created as a forum to encourage, promote, and support service level changes, to build relationships between health directors in British Columbia and the FNHC. It “provides a mechanism for health directors and community-based First Nations health organizations to participate in the design and planning of services in their area.”2 These First Nations health directors are also actively involved in Community Engagement Hubs, which provide a venue for mandated health organizations to discuss collaborate, and communicate about service changes needed in their respective communities. These Hubs have been provided to communities, with their resources being intended to reduce the extra work that existing staff would have to undertake otherwise. Thus, the technical team has tried to ensure that communication is as easy as possible, and that information sharing is easily facilitate. In its first year, there were 10 community hubs established, a number that has now risen to 25 across the province. In total, the FNHC is able to reach 160 First Nations communities through the hubs, allowing for further community engagement and the participation of health directors (who were provided with human resource support and funding through the FNHC “in order to enable the level of collaboration that communities had requested.”3)

1 FNHC Report, “3 Years of Progress,” (2010) 19. 2 Ibid., 28. 3 FNHC Report, “3 Years of Progress,” (2010), 29.

28

Additionally, the Health Council was faced with the issue of responding to ongoing, immediate local and community health needs while implementing the long-term action plan. To balance out long-term planning with short-term needs, the Health Council “had funding available for ensuring First Nation participation in the plan and to support communities moving forward on their health initiatives.”4 This allowed the Health Council to highlight community initiatives that were working well, highlighting best practices for other First Nations. Through encouraging collaboration, and with the support of hubs, First Nations were able to work together to build relationships and deal with immediate community health concerns. With growing relationships and strategies in place, communities are better placed to look towards engaging in a long-term strategic plan for First Nations health. Community Development Liaisons “The purpose of the Community Development Liaison positions is to provide a wide range of community or organizational development skills to assist First nations, either independently or in a hub, to communicate, collaborate and plan with the FNHC and health partners…”5 Community Development Liaisons are put in place to better engage communities, including maximizing their participation in the FNHC and increasing access to FNHC resources. Since 2008, three have been appointed (in the Interior, Vancouver Island, and Northern regions); their job descriptions are developed jointly between the FNHC and health authorities, although they are the employees of the FNHC. Relationship to Provincial and Federal governments The FNHC was tasked with “the challenge of ensuring ongoing engagement with First Nations communities, while maintaining a focus on advocacy with government leaders.”6 Their mandate, however, is not to speak for First Nations, but rather to advocate the vision set forth by First Nations in the TFNHP. As there is no precedent for the forming of a tripartite agreement on health between provincial, federal, and First Nations governments, communities, and service providers, the FNHC technical team (the FN Health Society from 2008 onwards) was starting from scratch organizationally. The small staff of the organization have managed to strike a balance in size, allowing them to stay small enough to remain streamlined, yet with enough staff to meet the demands of implementing the TCA: FNHP and the TFNHP. As well, staff have had to become familiar with the structures, language, and policy frameworks of both the provincial and federal health departments and organizations, to increase efficiencies and communication. The FNHC is also in the position of having to balancing relationships and communications with two extremely varying partner organizations, differing in scope, size, and jurisdictions. Additionally, those personnel assigned to liaise with the FNHC were not actually able to make decisions or implement change within their respective organizations (given the bureaucratic structure of the provincial and federal health agencies), rendering decision making a difficult process. Compounding this further is the need to engage with regional health authorities. 4 Ibid., 30. 5 Ibid., 70. 6 Ibid., 22.

29

Historically, relationships with government partners, which now required much interaction and mutual understanding, may not have been optimal either, and education and raised awareness was required of all staff.

30

Annex B: BC First Nations Fisheries Council (FNFC) Interview Guide Commentary/Introduction: The British Columbia First Nations Fisheries Council (FNFC), at the Annual General Assembly in November set out a conceptual vision for First Nations to take ownership of fisheries implementation in BC, and in an effort to strengthen its governance capacity and consolidate a long-term strategic vision, has contracted the Institute on Governance (IOG) to conduct a governance review that would assist in achieving the first initial steps of this journey. This initiative has been undertaken by the FNFC to expand its current ability to meet its mandate through strengthening its evolving governance structure. Through interviews with key members of Regional Fisheries Organizations, staff, and board members, the IOG hopes to gain insight into the functioning of the FNFC, and be able to pinpoint strengths and areas of improvement within the organization, so that it can serve its membership better. All interviews conducted will be confidential, and there will be no attribution in the final report. Part I – Background 1. How long have you been associated with the FNFC, and in what capacity? 2. Overall, what has been your experience as a FNFC Board/staff member/external partner contact? Part II – The Organization 3. What is your understanding of the direction or mandate of the FNFC? Were you aware of the mandate of the leadership council in the creation of the FNFC? 4. How effective is the FNFC in achieving its mandate? Is there something more, less or different that FNFC should be doing? 5. In your view, how does the FNFC engage and demonstrate accountability to B.C. First Nations? In your experience, how effective are the accountability mechanisms of the FNFC, and what is your trust level with the organization? Is there anything more the FNFC could be doing regarding accountability? 6. How efficient is the FNFC at achieving its mandate for its constituents? Is there something more, less or different that could be done to increase efficiencies? 7. Are the governance policies and procedures of the FNFC appropriate and/or effective? 8. Does the FNFC effectively communicate with its members and stakeholders? Is communication regular, and do you receive enough or too much information? What type of communication works best for you? (electronic, in person, etc.) Part III – The Board 9. What is your understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the FNFC, the Council (board) as a whole and the directors of the Society? Does the board have the appropriate size and composition? Can you identify any gaps in expertise, representation, and geography within the current board structure? 10.How well do you feel the FNFC Board fulfills these roles and responsibilities?

31

11.Is that role appropriate for the mandate of the FNFC? (Rights and title, and spanning through to the operational and technical scope of fisheries) 12.What are the strengths and principle weaknesses of the current governance structure? 13.Can you describe the relationship of the Board to the Leadership Council? Can you describe the relationship of the Board to regional First Nations fisheries organizations? Are organizations sufficiently connected to the FNFC processes? Part IV – Board – Staff Relations 14.Is there sufficient staff to conduct the business of the FNFC in the fulfillment of the Board’s expectations? 15.How would you describe the general state of Board-staff relations? Are the roles and responsibilities of Board and staff clear to and respected by all? Part V – FNFC – Stakeholder Relations 16.How would you describe the relationship between the FNFC and the First Nations it serves? Is there something more, less or different that FNFC should be doing? 17.How would you describe the relationship between the FNFC, the First Nations Leadership Council, and other fisheries groups/organizations in British Columbia? Between the FNFC and federal and provincial governments? Is there something more, less or different that FNFC should be doing? 18.Is there something additional that the FNFC should include in its stakeholder outreach? Part VI – Vision and General Comments 19. Are you aware of any strategic plan developed by the FNFC? What do you believe the priorities of the FNFC over the next 3 to 5 years should be? Do you believe they are working towards those priorities? Is the FNFC actively working towards the development of a strategic vision that encompasses these priorities? How well is this balanced with short-term issues and concerns? Is the vision of the FNFC enough? Is it appropriate? 20.What do you see as the major challenges the FNFC will have to face with the priorities you have identified? 21.Are there any governance practices that FNFC has implemented that you would like to highlight? Any areas of concern that you have not yet mentioned? 22.Do you have any other responses or comments?

32

Annex C – Interview Response Summary The following is a brief summary of the responses given during the interviews conducted by the IOG with Council members, FNFC staff, DFO staff, and First Nations stakeholders. Where required, organizational attribution is used to provide context for a comment. Otherwise, the responses remain anonymous. The Organization:

-­‐ The FNFC is on a solid path, is seen as credible and accountable, with a strong mandate and strategic direction.

-­‐ A critical issue is how they can represent all 203 First Nations in BC. -­‐ FNFC acts to aggregate perspectives from regional organizations and presents a

clearer ‘roles and responsibilities’ definition to differentiate between the political, policy and technical functions carried out by various bodies in BC.

-­‐ Appears to be in the ‘forming’ stage, although they have increased their effectiveness in the last few years.

-­‐ There have been some examples of First Nations being represented, or specific communities having an issue addressed that may not have been possible without the FNFC.

-­‐ Issues still remain with other organizations – region or issue based ones. Questions remain as to how to work together, and recognizing where there is overlap.

-­‐ Communication has been somewhat of an issue for the FNFC, as each regional representative has the responsibility to report out and communicate out to their communities. Information sharing could perhaps be made easier by having information in writing, to be disseminated at locations within the community (not just oral updates)

-­‐ An excellent, co-operative proactive, and prepared organization; one that is interested in tackling hard issues in a collaborative way.

-­‐ DFO must look at where there is overlapping interests, which currently means sustainable fisheries, capacity development, and facilitating a more collaborative framework.

-­‐ To DFO, the working groups are “somewhat of an anachronism”; a bit uneven, and DFO is a bit unhappy with them and how they function.

-­‐ A First Nations stakeholder understands the mandate of the FNFC to be to address the outstanding questions on title and rights issues around fish and fish habitat in the province.

-­‐ Doesn’t think that the working groups are yielding results that will be in the best interest of First Nations. Although they were put together with excellent intentions, they have not been met with the same level of commitment by DFO.

-­‐ The FNFC could become more focused on proactive policy analysis and legal responses, yet keep advocating to help with the development of policy, so that they are not just reacting to policy.

-­‐ A sophisticated governance structure that has been shaped to accommodate the complexities of First Nation representation in BC.

-­‐ Their mandate is to implement, from the direction of its members, any rights and title issues – they can find other groups with common issues that can then be elevated to a higher level so that they can be addressed.

33

-­‐ The biggest issue that the FNFC will face is how representation is done within First Nations. Thus far, their approach has been good, as they recognize that they are not there to represent all First Nations, but to bring forward issues that affect all 203 BC First Nations.

-­‐ There will always be discrepancies between regional representatives and how much information is actually disseminated out to constituents. The FNFC will have to strike a balance between how much of a focus they place on nitty-gritty issues like this, and overall communications.

-­‐ The mandate of the FNFC should be to support title and rights claims, and increasing access to resources (both economic and FSC access) for First Nations.

-­‐ FNFC is currently in ‘reactionary’ mode – they can only react to policy put forth by DFO, due to their internal focus on governance (until people are comfortable with how the organization is governed).

The Board:

-­‐ A bit of work remains to make sure that the council is geographically representative, which may be accomplished perhaps by doing work on roles and responsibilities.

-­‐ The board could be engaged more, to compensate for the overworked staff, and in conjunction with co-coordinating with other organizations.

-­‐ Other First Nations organizations and regional organizations have started working with the FNFC – more so than in the past – due to the good work that the FNFC has done recently.

-­‐ Their current governance structure is geographically based, making it tough for members to say that they represent a specific area (i.e. Some EC members will represent regions with multiple First Nations within them). Subsets of these regions, however, would be too small, and people would no longer feel that their voice is being heard.

-­‐ Perhaps look to the Fraser Basin Council as a good model to look towards? -­‐ Board governance is seen to be sound, with solid connections to the Leadership

Council. -­‐ Some confusion remains as to who is able to speak on behalf of the working groups, or

who is able to speak on behalf of the whole body during working groups. Similarly, different board members have different levels of understanding of their roles and responsibilities, weakening the board as a whole.

-­‐ The time commitment of board members varies greatly, but it can range between a few to several days a month, depending on the level of involvement.

-­‐ The board needs to stay focused on broad areas of common interest among nations – it’s very easy to be taken down a road of responding to specific issues of First Nations, or to funding opportunities that come up.

-­‐ Availability is a big issue – the time commitment to board members is able to offer varies greatly, and it is the responsibility of the board member to report out to their region.

-­‐ The FNFC hasn’t really determined exactly how it wants the board to function, and it is comprised of people coming from very different backgrounds and capacities within their communities. Board training may help to solve this issue.

34

-­‐ Council members need to report back – this is recognized as a key limitation of the council. A lot of communities don’t feel connected to their council members, and thus some participate in the FNFC as individuals, not through their regional representative.

-­‐ One of the biggest gaps currently is that board members are not accountable and not required to report back – there isn’t enough structure in place. No consistency to appointments, or how much representation that they have within their communities.

-­‐ There is a structure in place for board members, but there isn’t any staff in place to support them, no technical people on the ground.

-­‐ There is a lack of clarity surrounding what type of board this is – is it operational or a strategic board? It appears to be very dependent on the individual board member.

-­‐ Time commitments are not made clear to board members prior to joining – many may not know what they’re getting into. The more they are required to do per month, the more operational they become, and then this turns their role into part-time employment, which comes with certain expectations.

-­‐ When it comes to looking for board members, there is no ‘ideal’ – it’s been seem that some members who were more engaged in the technical side of fisheries have been just as valuable as more charismatic community leaders.

-­‐ There is a lack of women on the board – this brings up issues of having a quota, or simply trying to encourage more women to become involved.

Board Staff Relations:

-­‐ A general consensus that the staff is extremely hard working, competent, and over-worked.

-­‐ An interviewee at DFO suggests that it would be better for the organization to be remaining at a smaller scale, or ‘agile’, to allow it deal with potential future losses of funding.

-­‐ Although there is somewhat of a grey area as to whether or not everything has to go through the Executive Director or not (i.e. asking staff to undertake tasks, do co-chairs have this right?), the board thinks very highly of the staff and respect their roles.

-­‐ One FNFC external stakeholder said that staff had commented that board-staff relations were not great, primarily based around board members not understanding their relationship with the staff – maybe this needs to be clarified?

-­‐ A lack of formal agreement as to how board and staff should interact with each other. Some board members do go around the Executive Director with requests to staff.

-­‐ There is an acknowledgement that there are too few staff, but also concern about expanding too much too quickly – they need to develop a consistent approach with consistent employment.

-­‐ Perhaps not just having staff in Vancouver, but on the North coast, which is lacking in representation.

FNFC-Stakeholder Relations:

-­‐ Accepts the FNFC strategic direction priorities and that they are politically endorsed, but questions whether they are fully appropriate during a period of rationalization.

-­‐ Understands that the FNFC may want to engage other federal parties and provincial governments but sees their primary relationship staying with DFO.

35

-­‐ There are some things – like work on rights and title, moving forward with litigation – that DFO cannot provide funding for. The FNFC needs to look for external partners to engage to increase funding for these areas.

-­‐ There is a fine line between the FNFC doing or undertaking too much, and individual First Nations expecting too much from them; there is only so much that a small organization can do, especially given their limited resources.

-­‐ A DFO interviewee sees the mandate of the FNFC as beyond what DFO can provide, which means that the FNFC will have to look beyond DFO for funding in the future. They suggest looking towards the Health Council model for outreach.

-­‐ Trying to facilitate some time and travel to have board members actually visit or travel around the province could increase accountability – not sure if some people in his region have ever met a FNFC board member, unless they attended an Assembly.

-­‐ Has heard from some groups within his specific region that they haven’t formed a substantial relationship with the FNFC, but thinks this is primarily due to geography.

-­‐ Sees a very busy and changing agenda emerging from DFO over the past year, towards engaging First Nations – this could be vital to DFO in moving forward.

-­‐ When looking at expanding funding sources, the FNFC needs to consider the potential role of issues like stewardship and conservation, and how that could lead to potential new partnerships.

-­‐ Working groups were established with good intent, and with the goal of establishing a closer working relationship with DFO, and working through issues strategically, but they have become a huge administrative burden for the FNFC.

-­‐ There remains a lot of overlap with other regional organizations, a lot of redundancies – communication is key to reduce this and increase efficiency.

-­‐ In the same vein, they need to rely upon aggregate organizations to ensure communication with all 203 First Nations, as the FNFC can only focus on issues that affect a large number of First Nations in BC.

-­‐ It was expressed that perhaps DFO’s constant worry about how the FNFC can represent 203 First Nations is because they would like the FNFC to have mandated representation, with a clear outline as to who has the authority to speak in communities. First Nations, however, are much more communal and don’t mesh well with this need for a regimented hierarchy.

-­‐ Some projects that the FNFC are working on should involve other actors like AANDC, and diversifying funding should be a priority.

-­‐ A very positive relationship exists with aggregate bodies, and there is a recognition that something was missing prior to the FNFC, as there was no way to engage in a broader First Nations dialogue on issues prior.

-­‐ There is a responsibility to report out to stakeholders, but there are no clear guidelines on how to do that.

-­‐ There are multiple categories of First Nations fishers, and the FNFC needs to figure out how to integrate all of them.

-­‐ Still need to rationalize the FNFC’s relationship with the Leadership Council, and then build on this with the signing of charters with regional level aggregate organizations.

-­‐ DFO views itself as having an operational mandate, and thus they cannot engage on rights and title issues. If the FNFC were to take a more operations-based approach in terms of its relations with DFO, it would help to advance relations. The FNFC needs to

36

tell DFO exactly what it needs, so that the two organizations can start working together on wherever there is overlap.

-­‐ In general, the strides that the FNFC has made in the last year are the kind that will demonstrate to local communities and stakeholders that they are a worthy investment.

-­‐ How is receiving funding from just DFO constraining the FNFC? For example, commercial rights. How can they advocate on tough issues like this with the department, when typically they are ‘brushed under the rug’?

Vision and General Comments:

-­‐ The right priorities are in place, but they may be a bit fuzzy. Generally, they are very strong on outreach.

-­‐ On the issue of rights and title, an interviewee at DFO feels that they have quite the adversarial relationship with DFO. They feel as if they have been able to work on where there is a shared vision, but have had to ‘park’ issues that are outside of their jurisdiction.

-­‐ Cites the Health Council as a good case study to see what might come next, or lessons learned.

-­‐ DFO interviewee feels that the FNFC should focus more on capacity development, and that this is currently overshadowed by rights and title projects and initiatives.

-­‐ To ensure the protection of the First Nation right to harvest food, social, and ceremonial fisheries.

-­‐ The FNFC will have to contend with other very vocal and strong organizations (from the recreational and commercial sectors), while trying to ensure that their rights are met by DFO.

-­‐ A DFO interviewee suggests that the FNFC should focus primarily on capacity development for now, and avoid rights and title issues, as DFO cannot interpret Section 35 rights.

-­‐ Make sure that the FNFC has enough stability within their organizational structure to survive political turnover (and subsequently changes in funding).

-­‐ Focus more on convincing DFO, on behalf of BC First Nations, to engage First Nations in fisheries management decision-making processes.

-­‐ Their biggest hurdle will be political inertia and resistance to change. -­‐ Need to also focus on habitat and water. -­‐ The major challenge that they will face is that First Nations are not legally required to

work together, and that there is no defined share of resources for First Nations, coupled with uncertain funding.

-­‐ Would like to see the FNFC work towards co-management and increasing management authority for First Nations.

-­‐ Vision statements need to remain broad, as long as the board is taking the FNFC vision and measuring it against the strategic plan, and the staff are carrying out activities to support the vision, they are on the right track.

-­‐ A lack of buy-in still exists; the FNFC needs to ensure that communities are defining their own priorities so that people identify with what they are doing as an organization.

-­‐ Need to close the loop on developing a vision for co-management, and clarifying who their partners are.

37

-­‐ Right now, in this political climate, the FNFC needs to build its political pull, and be aware of why this is important.

-­‐ Review of the action plan is needed, to see what has been done, and what has changed, and if current FNFC priorities should change.

38

Annex D: Index of Documents Consulted “First Nations Fisheries Council: 2012-2015 Strategic Plan,” First Nations Fisheries Council. “The First Nations Fisheries Council of British Columbia: Council Member Handbook,” First

Nations Fisheries Council, January 2012. “Declaration & Protocol of Recognition, Support, Cooperation and Coordination,” First Nations

Fisheries Council, 2011. “First Nations Summit, Resolution #0911.12,” First Nations Summit, September 2011. “Snapshot Report: First Nation Fisheries Organizational Relationships in the Fraser Watershed

and Approach Area,” First Nations Fisheries Council, August 2010.

39

Annex E: Proposed Changes to Draft Council Member Handbook Policy No.: 2012-02 Title: Council Members Role To be added to the proposed policy, as a part of “Specific responsibilities may include,” To address issues broached by interview participants regarding uneven levels of Council member outreach:

1) Undertaking community outreach in the region that each Council member represents, ensuring community members and regional organizations are kept up-to-date on issues pertinent to the FNFC and BC fisheries.

To ensure that staff time is accounted for by the Executive Director, and that roles and responsibilities of staff, the Executive Director, and Council members are respected:

2) All new projects undertaken or work to be done as part of Council responsibilities (such as outreach) that requires staff support is to first be approved by the Executive Director.

To ensure that the Council is not engaging in the operations of the FNFC, but rather pursuing the development of a long-term strategic vision:

3) Council members, and subsequently Council meetings, are intended to help develop the strategic vision and broad direction of the FNFC.