Submitted to: Brent Mueller & Dale Leitch Community Transition Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services #221 Market Square–560 Johnson Street Victoria, British Columbia Date: October, 2001 Prepared by: Wayne Dunn & Bob Isbister 2457 Bakerview Road Mill Bay, BC V0R 2P0 250.743.7619 [email protected]Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
81
Embed
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
This report, which was commissioned by the Government of British Columbia, examines partnerships between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal partners n BC. The report outlines and analyzes ten specific case studies. The analysis is used to present a summary of lessons learned. Building on the findings of the report and the author’s extensive national and international work on indigenous partnerships, a strategy is outlined to enable a more systematic and sustainable partnership development approach.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Submitted to: Brent Mueller & Dale Leitch
Community Transition Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and
Women’s Services #221 Market Square–560 Johnson Street Victoria, British Columbia
Date: October, 2001 Prepared by: Wayne Dunn & Bob Isbister
2457 Bakerview Road Mill Bay, BC V0R 2P0 250.743.7619 [email protected]
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships:
Building Blocks for Sustainable
Community Development
i
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Acknowledgements The consulting team of Wayne Dunn & Associates Ltd. wish to acknowledge the sincere co-operation and support they received from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services, the Ministry of Water, Air and Land Protection, the Office of the Provincial Health Officer, and the numerous individuals and organizations involved in Aboriginal partnerships. While it is impossible to directly thank and acknowledge everyone who was so generous with their time, information and ideas, a number of individuals deserve special mention for their valuable contribution to this process. We are grateful to the Project Team of Mr. Dale Leitch, Executive Director, Community Transition Branch of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services and to Mr. Brent Mueller, Ms. Catherine Rodgers, also of this Ministry, for their input throughout this process. Their quick responses, insightful suggestions and ideas, and their enthusiastic collaboration throughout this project have been extremely valuable. Mr. Tim Cottrell, formerly Assistant Director of the Community Transition Branch was also an indispensable contributor to the project prior to his transfer to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. The Consultants and the Project Team would like to acknowledge the advice and assistance from Ms. Lisa Nye and Mr. Graham Dragushan of the Ministry of Community Aboriginal and Women's Services; Ms. Judy Birch of the Ministry of Water, Air and Land Protection; and Cathy Hull of the Office of the Provincial Health Officer. Throughout our research numerous individuals from various organizations throughout the province made themselves available for interviews (many more than once). While we cannot thank everyone directly, we would like to acknowledge Allan Pineo, Claire Marshall, Steve Mazur, Tarel S. Quandt, Cameron Beck, Bill Cordoban, Gerry Stelsmaschuk, Wayne d’Easum, Mathew Ney, Janice Rose, Robin True, Russ Helberg, Doug Krogel, Ron Creber, Frankie Craig, Wanda Stachura, Richard Krentz, Darlene Luke, Chief Sophie Pierre, Alex Wolf, Randall Martin, Bill Lee, Rob Enfield, Tina Donald, Kevin Brown, Clarence Louie, Jeannine Cook, Lee-Anne Crane, Gerry Sanders, Dave Monture, Mike Anderson, Georg Schurian, Jennifer Turner, Harvey Filger, Roger Williams, Bob Sankey, Bernadette Spence, Alison McNeil, Frieda Enns, Clinton Mutch, Diane St. Jacques and Steven James. To those we may have missed, please accept our sincere apologies and our heartfelt thanks. WDA Project Team:
Wayne Dunn Bob Isbister Gifty Serbeh-Dunn Bernadette Spence Randall Levine
ii
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Background.................................................................................. 1 2 Methodology and Approach ..................................................................................... 4
2.1 Approach................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Data Sources and Collection Methodologies ............................................................. 5 2.1.2 Data Collection Framework ....................................................................................... 5
2.2 Limitations of Research ........................................................................................... 7 3 Case Studies and Individual Partnership Analysis .............................................. 10
3.1 Summary of Partnership Case Studies................................................................. 10 3.2 Individual Case Studies ......................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Carrier Sekani Family Services................................................................................ 11 3.2.2 Gallagher Canyon Agreement .................................................................................. 14 3.2.3 Greater Massett Development Corporation.............................................................. 17 3.2.4 Iisaak Forest Resources ............................................................................................ 22 3.2.5 Lakeview Meadows.................................................................................................. 26 3.2.6 Monthly Licensee Meetings – North Thompson...................................................... 29 3.2.7 Skwlax/Sanders Construction Ltd. ........................................................................... 32 3.2.8 Sun Rivers Resort Community................................................................................. 36 3.2.9 Tsilqot’in People of Xeni and BC Parks (Ts’yl-os Provincial Park)........................ 39 3.2.10 West Chilcotin Forest Products................................................................................ 43
4 Lessons Learned....................................................................................................... 46 4.1 Motivation of Partners and Stakeholders ............................................................ 46 4.2 Critical Success Factors ......................................................................................... 49 4.3 Conflict Management............................................................................................. 50 4.4 Lessons Learned from Failed Partnerships ......................................................... 51 4.5 Lessons Learned from other Initiatives................................................................ 53
4.5.1 First Nations Summit of Chiefs and UBCM ............................................................ 54 4.5.2 Knowledge Network Series...................................................................................... 55
5 From Individual to Community – The Case for Community Level Facilitated Partnership Development ....................................................................................... 56
6 Building on the Results: Recommendations for Developing a Community Partnership Initiative....................................................................................... 59
6.1 Model Partnership and Bridge Building Process ................................................ 59 6.2 Selecting Pilot Project Communities .................................................................... 62 6.3 Next Steps - Launching a Pilot Project................................................................. 63
The results from the data gathering and analysis are presented in Section 3 (Case Studies
and Individual Partnership Analysis).
Following the analysis of individual partnerships the Consultants undertook an integrated
review of all ten partnerships to identify traits and characteristics that are generally
applicable to successful partnerships, regardless of which sector they are in. This is
presented in Section 4 (Lessons Learned).
Partnership Researchand Analysis
Identificationof Critical
SuccessFactors
ReplicablePartnershipCase Study
Legal/Structural Development
Accomplishments
AboriginalEmployment
CapacityDevelopment
Operational
Stakeholders
Barriers andConstraints
CommunityCharacteristics
External issuesAboriginal
Procurement
Financial
7
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
The draft plan for a Community Bridge Building Initiative is presented in Section 6.
2.2 Limitations of Research
The consultants recognize that there are significant limitations on the preliminary
research and analysis. These limitations include:
• Partnership identification was not exhaustive – No effort was made to
inventory every Aboriginal - Non-Aboriginal partnership in British Columbia.
However, consultation was undertaken with key government contacts with
extensive knowledge of Aboriginal partnerships. This consultation helped to
identify important partnerships and focus the Consultants on those partnerships
that the stakeholders felt most relevant. While conducting an inventory of
partnerships may well be a very useful exercise it was beyond the scope and
budget of the current project. The objective of the Phase I research was simply to
identify and collect information on enough partnerships to provide a pool from
which partnerships could be selected for further research and analysis.
This notwithstanding, the consultants would encourage the Government of BC to
consider undertaking an exhaustive partnership inventory. This exercise would
produce valuable information and data and would provide a baseline from which
to measure the success of efforts to support and promote Aboriginal/non-
Aboriginal partnerships.
• No crosschecking and data verification (Phase I) – For most partnerships only
one data source was utilized to gather data and information. However, the
consulting team itself has considerable personal knowledge of many of the
partnerships reviewed. This information was used to undertake a preliminary
verification of data and information. Still, there could well be some inaccuracies
8
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
in the data and information. Phase II research methodology utilized a data
checking and verification process as outlined in Section 2.1.
• Uneven geographic dispersion of partnerships. The project team attempted to
identify examples that represented a wide range of foci and types of initiative
rather than to undertake an exhaustive inventory of partnerships for any particular
area or to ensure that there were partnerships identified and reviewed from
throughout the entire province. While efforts were made to identify and gather
information from all areas, challenges with having telephone calls returned
limited the geographic dispersion in Phase I. Phase II research targets were, for
the most part, selected from partnerships reviewed in Phase I. Information was
not gathered on any partnerships in the far north of the province. It should be
noted that the research was conducted near the end of the fiscal year, a time that is
particularly demanding for most informants.
• Some partnerships are of recent origin. Generally, partnerships between
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal interests in BC are recent phenomena. Although
some partnerships had several years of operating experience, most were originally
formed within the past three years. As a result, some critical success factors and
key challenges may have not yet become evident. To compensate for this the
Consultants informally compared the results of the partnership analysis to their
knowledge of partnerships in other areas that have been in existence for extended
periods of time (e.g., Kitsaki Development Corporation/Trimac Transportation
(1986); Meadow Lake Tribal Council/NorSask Forest Products (1988), etc.).
• No Research into Failed Partnerships. The research focused only on existing
successful partnerships. In other words, it did not seek to review partnerships that
had failed in order to glean learnings from them. However the researchers have
had direct experience in partnerships that have failed and this has been factored
into the Lessons Learned discussion in Section 4.
9
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Despite the limitations noted above, the Consultants are confident that the research and
analysis has provided findings that are interesting and useful and which will serve to
guide the establishment of comprehensive partnership development and bridge building
initiatives in British Columbia. These findings and analyses are presented in subsequent
Sections.
10
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
3 Case Studies and Individual Partnership Analysis
3.1 Summary of Partnership Case Studies
The following list summarizes the detailed case studies reviewed in this report and
specifies the sector that they are from.
1. Environment • Tsilqot'in People of Xeni and BC Parks
2. Social
• Carrier Sekanni Family Services 3. Economic
• West Chilcotin Forest Products Ltd. • Monthly Licensee Meetings – North Thompson • Skwalx/Sanders Construction Ltd – Little Shuswap Indian Band and Sanders
Construction • Greater Masset Development Corporation • Iisaak Forest Resources
4. General
• Sun Rivers Resort Community – Kamloops Indian Band and Sun Rivers 5. Other (Municipal)
• Gallagher Canyon Agreement • Lake View Meadows
Detailed case studies of the above ten partnerships are presented in the following sub-
section. The case studies are arranged in alphabetical order.
11
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
3.2 Individual Case Studies
The following ten sub-sections discuss the ten case studies referred to earlier. Specific
contacts and methods of data gathering utilized for gathering information are summarized
in the Appendix Information Sources.
3.2.1 Carrier Sekani Family Services
Parties to the Agreement:
• Carrier Sekani Family Services ⇒ Wet’suwet’en First Nation ⇒ Cheslatta First Nation ⇒ Burns Lake First Nation ⇒ Stellat’en First Nation ⇒ Nadleh Whut’en First Nation ⇒ Saik’us First Nation ⇒ Nak’azdli First Nation ⇒ Tl’azt’en First Nation ⇒ Takla Lake First Nation ⇒ Yekooche First Nation
• Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
• Ministry for Children and Family Services
Narrative Description of the Collaboration
Carrier Sekani Family Services is essentially a service delivery agreement entered into in
1991 between the Provincial Ministry of Child and Family Services, Indian and Northern
Affairs Canada (INAC) and the ten First Nations. This is a multi-year financing
agreement that allows the First Nations to organize a service delivery agency (Carrier
Sekani Family Services) to deliver child and family service programs to First Nations
Peoples in the area. The agreement is similar to others that are negotiated throughout
Canada involving First Nations, INAC and the relevant provincial Ministry.
12
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
INAC’s policy governing the
financing of Child and Family
Service Agency funding stipulates
that there must be a minimum of
500 children in the area before
they will enter into an agreement
(the purpose is to ensure effective
economies of scale).
Launched in 1990/91 the Mission Statement of Carrier Sekani Family Services is:
A 10 person Board of Directors, one from each member nation, oversees the operation of
Carrier Sekani.
Motivation of the Partners and Stakeholders
The First Nations’ interest was to ensure that their membership received child and family
services in a culturally appropriate manner. The Federal and Provincial government
recognized that traditional mechanisms for delivering child and family services to First
Nations Peoples was not working and that they could be enhanced through First Nations
controlled delivery structures.
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors
Interviews and research have identified several lessons learned and critical success
factors. They are:
• Secure financing is a critical issue, especially in an organization that has no
mechanism for internally generated financing;
• A strong focus on acquiring, training and maintaining quality staff is fundamental.
This is especially important when activities are located in relatively remote areas
Mission Statement
"With the guidance of our elders, Carrier Sekani
Family Services is committed to the healing and
empowerment of Aboriginal Families by taking
direct responsibilities for health, social and legal
services for First Nations people residing in Carrier
Sekanni territory."
13
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
and there is a difficulty in attracting staff to move from the more populated areas
like the lower mainland;
• There is value in delivering more services, as long as they are related in a general
way. This provides the organization with improved economies of scale and
greater visibility with its stakeholders.
• It is important to involve the communities and local stakeholders at the onset of
the project. It allows the membership to define priorities and drive the process.
This will ensure much more credibility when the organization is up and running.
• There is a need to develop as much information as possible and manage it in a
way that it can be used to further the goals of the organization.
Bridge Building and Conflict Management Strategies
Due to the nature of the collaboration – an agreement with Federal and Provincial
governments to deliver specific services to specific clients, there did not appear to be any
overt bridge building strategies undertaken. Conflicts with other governments are
addressed through negotiations; other conflicts (staff, member nations, etc.) are addressed
through the personnel manual and organization by-laws.
14
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
3.2.2 Gallagher Canyon Agreement
Parties to the Agreement:
• Westbank First Nation, Kelowna, BC
• Central Okanagan Regional District (CORD), Kelowna, BC
• The Corporation of the City of Kelowna
• The Black Mountain Irrigation District
• The South East Kelowna Irrigation District
Narrative Description of the Collaboration
After nearly five years of negotiations the Westbank First Nation and the Central
Okanagan Regional District (CORD) signed a five-year services agreement (Gallagher
Canyon Agreement) in early 2000. The agreement includes other local stakeholders and
covers how services are provided to some fee simple land that the First Nation purchased
several years ago.
After purchasing the land the First Nation wanted to convert it to Reserve status. The
land had several easements to local Improvement Districts to allow for the provision of
water to their constituents. As well, the City of Kelowna had constructed a road through
the land in question. In order to fully understand the implications for all stakeholders
CORD asked the Federal Government to undertake a thorough examination of the
situation prior to converting the land to Reserve Status.
In about 1995 CORD and Westbank began negotiations to develop a framework for
development of this land. While the original intent of the land purchase was to provide
land for First Nation’s housing, everyone recognized that the agreement needed to be
flexible enough to enable the stakeholders to accommodate changing requirements in the
future.
15
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
The agreement addresses the allocation of various developmental costs, the number of
homes, types of buildings allowed and provides for the continuation of the easements. It
also protects the rights of the several service providers on this land.
CORD also has another agreement with Westbank which addresses payment for services
provided to approximately 7,000 non-Aboriginals who live on Reserve land but utilize
CORD services (recreation centre, emergency vehicles, etc.). CORD felt that this
agreement did not provide the Regional District with adequate payment for services
provided so they took the First Nation to court to attempt to have the agreement
renegotiated. The court case failed but relations between the parties remained cordial.
According to CORD the First Nation acknowledges that there is a problem with the
current agreement and that, in the interest of longer-term collaboration and relationships,
a new agreement should be developed.
Even though the Gallagher Canyon Agreement has been in place for only one year, the
stakeholders have already begun negotiations for a follow-up agreement that would also
address the issue of non-Aboriginals utilizing CORD services.
Motivation of the Partners and Stakeholders
• The primary motivation for each partner was the desire to develop a mutually
agreeable framework for development and development services on the land
acquired by the First Nation. Each party wanted the agreement to be structured so
that it would support their longer-term development aspirations and provide a
mechanism for fair allocation of costs and benefits.
16
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors
• All parties were motivated to develop a legal agreement that could provide a
framework to support their respective needs and development aspirations.
• The parties agreed to spend the time up-front (five-years) to ensure that all issues
were raised in negotiations and that the final agreement would meet their needs.
• It is possible to have a ‘civilized disagreement’ and still remain as active
collaborators on other fronts.
• When developing agreements it is critically important to openly communicate
one’s needs and to be patient and keep the discussion going, even when some
aspects of it are difficult and there is no evident path to an agreement.
Bridge Building and Conflict Management Strategies
The parties identified two specific bridge building and conflict management strategies
that worked for them. They were:
• Keep the dialogue going even when there is conflict and the two sides don’t fully
understand each other; and
• Make the agreement comprehensive so that all foreseeable conflicts and issues have
been addressed.
17
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
3.2.3 Greater Massett Development Corporation
Parties to the Agreement:
• Old Masset First Nation
• Village of Masset
Narrative Description of the Collaboration
The Greater Massett Development Corporation (GMDC) had its genesis in 1994 when
the Federal Department of National Defense (DND) decided to close the local military
base (GMDC was incorporated in 1996). The base contained: 190 residences; barracks
that could accommodate up to 65 people; a recreation centre; a curling rink, and
administration buildings. Costs to dismantle and decommission the facilities were
pegged at $3 million.
Coupled with significant downturns in the forestry and fisheries sectors, and the closure
of a local refueling station, the village of Massett and the Old Massett First Nation were
facing a major economic downturn. The military base had traditionally pumped about $5
million dollars per year into the local economy – its closure could be devastating. DND
was facing a major public relations challenge as the closure of the base could push the
local economy over the economic brink and DND could become the public scapegoat.
Necessity brought the three major stakeholders (Old Massett First Nation, Village of
Massett and DND) together to try and develop a scenario that would lessen the economic
and social impact of the base closure. The First Nation and the Village had prior
partnership experience with each other – two years earlier they had combined their sewer
and water systems. This benefited both parties by improving overall service and creating
operational efficiencies and economies of scale.
18
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
The stakeholders decided that the economic impact of the base closure could be mitigated
somewhat with the formation of a development corporation that would be jointly owned
by the First Nation and the Village. DND agreed to transfer the base infrastructure and
fixed assets, along with the $3 million decommissioning budget to the newly formed
Greater Massett Development Corporation.
The GMDC was formed as the vehicle to liquidate the assets, and look after the funds
from the sales of Personnel Married Quarters (PMQs) and other former DND properties.
Approximately $8 million in revenue was generated through these sales. The GMDC was
to re-invest these funds into the two communities to enhance local economic
development activities. GMDC presently utilizes these funds to support the operations of
the Old and the New Massett Economic Development offices. DND also provided the
GMDC with a $3,000,000 barracks demolition fund which is presently invested in its
own account, the interest of which is only to be used to subsidise the operation of the
Massett recreation centre.
Each partner (the village and the First Nation) appointed five Directors to the GMDC
Board and they began the difficult process of launching a jointly owned corporation and
affecting the transfer of assets from DND. The partners spent considerable time at the
front end developing a strategic plan for GMDC. This afforded the opportunity to
surface potential conflict areas and fully discuss the strategic direction of the corporation
and the communities.
Transferring the assets from DND proved to be a Herculean challenge involving 11
different government departments and many layers of bureaucracy. The $3 million was
put into a GMDC managed ‘Greenfield Fund’ which is used to assist local entrepreneurs.
The former administration centre was converted into an incubator mall, which has
already spawned some successful local businesses. The GMDC operates the recreation
facilities for the benefit of the entire community. Western Diversification provides
project specific financing to assist GMDC.
19
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
GMDC holds monthly Board of Director meetings, and two large meetings per year that
are open to the general public; an Annual General Meeting and a Public Meeting.
Communication with the public and consistent attendance at Director’s meetings has
been a critical issue for GMDC.
Decisions are made by a ten-person Board of Directors (each partner appoints five Board
members). At one point GMDC undertook a major communication initiative, going
door-to-door in the community to inform community members of the corporation and its
strategic direction (they used the strategic plan as a guide).
Although there have been numerous challenges, including ensuring that there are revenue
streams to match expenses (e.g., operating community recreation facilities), and it is too
early to determine its long term success, GMDC has had a positive impact on the Greater
Massett community. It has inspired a can-do attitude and helped to mitigate the social
and economic impact of the base closure. It has established infrastructure that is
dedicated to supporting the economic rejuvenation of the entire community. As well, it
has significantly increased cross-cultural interaction and fostered improved relations
between the First Nations and non-First Nations communities.
The main financial challenge facing GMDC is that there are no significant revenue
sources. The operations of the GMDC and the costs of operating the recreation center are
funded from the rapidly depleting capital base that was generated by the liquidation of
DND assets.
However, despite the intentions of all parties, there have been few jobs or entrepreneurs
created other than in the operation of the recreation centre. There have been few direct
benefits for the community, other than the 8 to 11 total employees of the GMDC. The
partnership appears to face serious challenges as the $11 Million in seed money that they
started with has been seriously eroded and continues to be burned at a high rate by the
costs of the recreation centre. Some people that were interviewed indicated that the
20
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
partnership has actually worsened relationships between the Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal elements of the community.
Motivation of the Partners and Stakeholders
The partners and stakeholders were all motivated by enlightened self-interest. Old
Massett First Nation and the Village of Massett were searching for opportunities to
mitigate major economic shocks to the community. DND and the Federal Government
sought to close the base with a minimum negative impact on the local economy and on
their reputation.
The original motivation was to split the DND assets equally between the two
communities. This has not changed since its inception; both communities would like to
share in the assets equally.
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors
The partners identified several lessons learned and critical success factors:
• It was vitally important to spend time at the onset in the development of a
strategic plan. In addition to providing direction to the corporation, the process of
developing the plan enabled the partners to address numerous issues that may
have created serious problems if left un-addressed;
• Communication with community members is essential – do what it takes to
ensure that the larger community is informed;
• Once you have a plan, stick to it. A well-developed strategic plan/vision can
provide directional stability and allow an organization to proactively pursue its
long-term vision. Conversely, failure to follow a plan/vision encourages reactive
responses to the opportunity of the week;
21
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
• Solid financial plans, especially on the revenue side, are extremely important.
Failure to adequately develop a sustainable financial plan can place extreme
stresses on the partnership and the relationships between the partners;
• A committed Board of Directors who will attend all meetings, and provide
strategic guidance and direction to the organization is of critical importance;
• Ensure that the operations of the development corporation are managed in a way
that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the organization. This requires
careful selection of a General Manager and ensuring that appropriate
management, reporting and monitoring processes are in place that allow any
deviations from the strategic plan to be quickly identified and corrected; and
• It is important to ensure that the Directors are qualified and well trained and that
personal agendas do not interfere with the strategic direction of the organization.
Bridge Building and Conflict Management Strategies
There were a number of processes and strategies that helped to mitigate the impact of
conflicts and build bridges between the two communities. These included:
• A two-day strategic planning workshop at the start of the partnership to address
outstanding issues and develop a strategic plan for the partnership;
• Decisions of the partnership are made by consensus;
• The partners have found that, as they come together for community activities in
their jointly owned recreation facilities, they have developed better friendships
with one and other on a personal level.
22
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
While not officially ‘partners’ in Iisaak, numerous international environmental
organizations such as Greenpeace were critical stakeholders who had shaped the
conditions that stimulated the creation of Iisaak.
Narrative Description of the Collaboration
Worldwide attention was brought to bear on the logging industry in Clayoquot Sound in
the 1990s. International organizations applied tremendous pressure on companies
logging (clear-cutting) the old growth forests in the area, disrupting logging activities and
alienating markets in Europe and North America.
Clayoquot Sound is the traditional home of the Central Nuu-chah-nulth Aboriginal
people. They have an interest in reclaiming their lands to promote economic, social and
cultural development for their people. These people include five First Nations, with the
northern most three, the Hesquiaht, Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht residing within
Clayoquot Sound with the Ucluelet and Toquaht bordering to the south.
23
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Before the escalation of conflict, Weyerhaeuser (MacMillan Bloedel (MB)) the operator
throughout the 1990s was purchased by Weyerhaeuser in 1999) had an annual harvest of
over 600,000 cubic metres in Clayoquot Sound, which generated over $100 million in
economic activity. This activity was a significant component of the local economy
supporting many local businesses and providing a revenue base to municipal, provincial
and federal governments.
Initially the local First Nations, who had been largely excluded from the economic
benefits associated Weyerhaeuser’s (MB) operation, supported and were supported by the
international organizations that were leading the anti-logging protest. In July 1996, First
Nations hosted an all-stakeholder meeting to discuss a resolution to Clayoquot
controversy. In January 1997, Weyerhaeuser (MB) laid off 110 workers with a decision
to stop logging in Clayoquot Sound for 18 months.
Iisaak Forest Resources was formed in March 1997, as a joint venture between Nuu-
chah-nulth people and Weyerhaeuser (MB). Iisaak (pronounced e-sock) would be 51%
First Nations owned and would take over Weyerhaeuser’s (MB’s) operations in
Clayoquot Sound. However harvests would be reduced to 40,000 cubic metres per year
and be put-off for three years while value-added forest product opportunities were
investigated. Harvesting resumed in Clayoquot in August 2000.
Iisaak Forest Resources will harvest up to 40,000 cubic metres per year. That is less than
10% of the volume that had been sustained before the dispute began. First Nations
control Iisaak, not Weyerhaeuser (MB), and they have options to increase their
ownership, to 100% at some point. Weyerhaeuser (MB) will continue to work with
Iisaak, providing start-up working capital and management experience.
The intent of the partners is that the area will be managed first for conservation values
and then for economic benefit. This enabled the support of many of the international
organizations that had previously led the protest against Clayoquot logging.
24
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Iisaak is committed to an eco-forestry approach, logging in second growth areas,
supplying wood to local value-added wood converters and pursuing eco-certifications
through a process agreed to by the international organizations. Some watersheds and
other areas will be set aside for non-timber uses including eco-tourism and spiritual uses.
The international organizations have committed to assist with marketing products from
Iisaak and to continue looking for other ways to stay positively involved.
Economically, Iisaak expects to operate at barely above break-even in 2000 and 2001. So
despite the positive feeling of the parties supporting Iisaak, it is clearly too early to
conclude whether Iisaak will grow to be an economically viable success.
Motivation of the Partners and Stakeholders
• The First Nations involved were interested in both economic growth and development
and in preserving Clayoquot Sound as one of the world’s special places.
• Weyerhaeuser was interested in limiting the damage to its international
reputation/brand equity and the alienation of markets for its other forest products.
Additionally, Iisaak provides them with an opportunity to work directly in partnership
with First Nations and will undoubtedly assist them in their relationships with First
Nations Peoples in other areas where they work.
• While many of the international organizations would have undoubtedly preferred an
absolute moratorium on logging in Clayoquot Sound, they realized that for them to
continue opposing a limited-impact logging program that was supported by local First
Nations would be difficult.
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors
A number of lessons can be drawn from this experience:
25
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
• First Nations can have a strong influence on disputes between industry and
environmentalists;
• Local issues can quickly become global problems for resource companies; and
• First Nations’ leadership and commitment were able to draw former combatants
together and forge a common ground.
Bridge Building and Conflict Management Strategies
The Iisaak partnership grew out of one of the biggest conflicts in BC history. Partners
have learned to work together in support of their common interest. First Nations
leadership and moral commitment to balance environmental preservation with the
creation of economic opportunities for their members provided the catalyst to bridge the
chasm that had developed between the parties.
26
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
3.2.5 Lakeview Meadows
Parties to the Agreement:
• Shuswap First Nation, Cranbrook, BC
• Regional District of East Kootenay, Cranbrook, BC
• Private Developer (Lakeview Meadows)
Narrative Description of the Collaboration
In the late 1990s the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK) and the Shuswap First
Nation faced some difficult challenges. The popularity of the area as a summer resort
resulted in extensive development along the shores of Lake Windermere. All of the
houses and cottages were on septic fields, which were causing pollution levels to rise to
unacceptable standards. RDEK recognized the need for a new sewer and water system,
but financing the $15 million cost of developing it would require an expensive and
lengthy referendum process, with no guarantee of receiving approval.
Due to geology, geographic proximity and a greater degree of regulatory autonomy, it
made sense to explore the option of having the Shuswap First Nation finance and
construct the sewer and water system and sell services to RDEK. The parties already had
a history of cooperating. The First Nation had a service agreement with the Regional
District for fire protection and the Regional District had a member on the First Nation’s
Development Review Board. As well, the First Nation saw this as a lucrative opportunity
to protect the environment and make a profit at the same time.
The situation came to a head when a private developer wanted to develop Lakeview
Meadows subdivision and needed sewer and water services in order to do so. The First
Nation negotiated a pre-payment of service fees and an agreement to pay design costs and
construction costs from the edge of the reserve to the Lakeview Meadows subdivision.
27
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
They leveraged the prepayment and commitment to secure the capital to develop the
system. Today the First Nation supplies sewer and water services to the Lakeview
Meadows subdivision and has a new system for their own members. RDEK has a
management contract with the First Nation to manage the system for at least five years –
during this time it is expected that someone from the First Nation will be trained to
operate the system. Financing for the system was entirely private – the First Nation was
able to bypass traditional government financing processes for on-reserve infrastructure,
allowing them to proceed with the development in a timely fashion (sources indicated
that the average time to process government financing for on-reserve infrastructure is 36-
42 months).
Motivation of the Partners and Stakeholders
The partners had a history of working together and recognized that they could realize
advantages by collaborating on this initiative. They both wanted to reverse the
environmental damage that was caused by septic systems. RDEK wanted to avoid the
challenges of securing regulatory approval and raising $15 million capital to finance a
new system. The First Nation wanted to utilize their geographic and geological
advantages to develop a profitable business opportunity.
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors
A number of lessons learned and critical success factors emerged when reviewing this
partnership with the stakeholders:
• Leadership is critical. The First Nation had strong leadership with clear vision
and goals (and an active process of consultation and communication with the FN
community);
• Communication is essential. Each party involved the other in relevant decisions
and there was a regular sharing of information;
28
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
• Both partners had clear goals and understood what they could do best to make the
partnership work;
• Both partners stressed the importance of entering into negotiations with an open
mind, a good understanding of the risks and a commitment to continue
negotiations until all issues had been addressed and the best possible deal for
everyone had been developed;
• Financing – developing and arranging the appropriate financial package allowed
the development to proceed in a timely manner; and
• Shared interests – the parties needed each other to solve a common problem
(pollution) and to achieve other party specific objectives (e.g., create a revenue
opportunity, avoid a referendum and the need to raise a huge amount of capital).
Bridge Building and Conflict Management Strategies
In addition to a history of trust and collaboration developed through earlier initiatives the
partners stressed the importance of regular communication as a mechanism for bridge
building and managing potential conflict. The agreement also included a clause
committing the parties to binding arbitration if they were unable to come to agreement on
a particular issue.
29
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
3.2.6 Monthly Licensee Meetings – North Thompson
Parties to the Agreement (Process):
The participants are:
• North Thompson First Nation
• Ministry of Forests (MOF)
• Ministry of Environment (MOE)
• FRBC
• Tolco Industries
• Slocan Forest Products
• Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd.
• Adams Lake Lumber (Division of Interfor)
• Gilbert Smith Forest Products
• Several small forest operators from the area
Guests and Environmental consultants sometimes participate in the meetings.
Narrative Description of the Collaboration
In the early 1990s the stakeholders in North Thompson’s forest and other natural
resources began meeting regularly (monthly) to exchange information and inform each
other of their plans and priorities. Although the meetings were nominally about all
resource sectors, forestry related issues were generally the primary focus. These
meetings have continued over the past decade and have become an important and regular
feature of resource management and development in the North Thompson.
30
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
A major benefit of the process is that it provides an ongoing opportunity for dialogue and
interaction amongst the stakeholders. This dialogue assists the stakeholders to get to
know each other and to increase the coordination and efficiency of projects and activities.
For example, if the First Nations require wood for its mill, the meetings provide a forum
where they can discuss the most efficient means to get it with the major industry
participants. In some cases it may be that TOLCO is harvesting the needed species in the
geographic area – in other cases it may be Weyerhaeuser. Regardless of which supplier,
the meetings provide a quick and efficient means to gathering this information and input.
An added benefit of the meetings is that they provide an opportunity for the stakeholders
to get to know each other better. For instance, several non-Aboriginal participants noted
that they have a greater appreciation for the range of issues and concerns being addressed
by First Nations – not just those directly related to local resources. As well, the
participants in the meetings often get together for social events that help to further their
mutual understanding.
Motivation of the Partners and Stakeholders
There was and still is a plethora of motivations for the individual stakeholders to
participate. They include:
• To maintain effective information flow and communication – keeping abreast of
each other’s activities and quickly identifying potential synergies and
opportunities to increase efficiency;
• To build relationships and understanding with other stakeholders;
• To understand the concerns and priorities of the North Thompson First Nation in
relation to forestry and other resource harvesting/management activities;
• To understand the capacity of local First Nation’s people and institutions and how
they can add value to existing and planned activities;
31
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
• To maximize the employment, business and other benefits accruing to First
Nation’s people from the harvesting and development of local forestry and other
resources;
• To provide an opportunity for informal input into broad Provincial Government
requirements on issues related to local resource management;
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors
• It is important that everyone participate with a spirit of openness and cooperation,
ready to really listen to the viewpoints and concerns of the others;
• Perseverance is critical. It is important that the meetings be held regularly and
that participants attend consistently; and
• It is critical that participants keep in mind the objective of the meetings –
communication, dialogue and identification of opportunities for collaboration and
synergy. It needs to be clearly understood that the meetings are not a political
forum.
Bridge Building and Conflict Management Strategies
• The regularity of the meetings and the interaction between the participants has
enabled them to get to know each other on many levels. When they are not in
agreement on a particular issue there is a depth to the relationship that sustains
them as they work through potential conflict(s);
• The participants regularly get together for social events such as a cultural day at
the First Nation or renting the local ski hill and spending a family skiing day
together; and
• The group tries to be proactive about identifying and addressing potential conflict
issues and, if necessary, will hold weekly meetings on special occasions to ensure
adequate communication and information flow amongst stakeholders.
32
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
3.2.7 Skwlax/Sanders Construction Ltd.
Parties to the Agreement:
• Little Shuswap Indian Bank, Chase BC
• Sanders & Company, Merrit BC
Narrative Description of the Collaboration
Sanders and Company, a Merritt based road construction and heavy equipment company
had been successfully undertaking projects on the Little Shuswap Indian Band’s (LSIB)
Quaaout Reserve for about seven years. In 1999 LSIB and Sanders decided that it would
be beneficial for both parties to form a company to undertake smaller (under $10 million)
road construction and heavy equipment projects. Skwlax/Sanders Construction Ltd. was
formed with the LSIB holding a 51% interest. Each party nominated two persons to the
Board of Directors and the management agreement made a provision for a fifth,
independent, director to be appointed jointly (to date this position has not been filled).
The company bid on and secured several projects during their first year of operation,
generating over $1 million in revenue. Gerry Sanders and Stuart Adamson, a senior
manager with LSIB, make the day-to-day decisions of the company, on a collaborative
basis. Any projects that require financing must be approved by the LSIB. Project
managers make Day to day project decisions.
Sanders brought technical expertise and equipment to the partnership while LSIB brought
manpower, information on upcoming projects and the ability to meet Aboriginal
procurement guidelines. LSIB also brought administrative capacity and are tasked with
maintaining the company’s accounting system.
33
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
The company had some initial challenges as it sought to balance First Nation member’s
desire to maximize employment with the economic reality of operating a project based
company in a cyclical sector. After much discussion it was agreed that, while
employment and training opportunities for First Nation’s people is a strong priority,
employment must be based on project revenue. The partners closely monitor the
financial profit and the employment and training that the projects generate.
In addition to the profits and employment, the partnership produced an unexpected
benefit in terms of addressing at least one person’s way of thinking about Aboriginal
peoples. On one project Skwlax Sanders deliberately engaged a subcontractor who had a
reputation as a vocal redneck and a staunch opponent of Aboriginal development. As a
result of working directly with the company and its Aboriginal workers, this person’s
attitude made a 180-degree shift.
Motivation of the Partners and Stakeholders
The motivations of both partners were enlightened self-interest. The LSIB wanted more
employment opportunities for First Nations members, an opportunity to share in the
profits of local construction work, and the ability to have a more substantial local
business presence. Sanders wanted to develop more work and to ensure that its work in
the area was sustainable by developing a partnership with a leading influencer of local
construction opportunities.
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors
Although the partnership is still in its early stages, a number of lessons learned and
critical success factors have been identified. They include:
• It is important to have strong technical skills in order to bid on and manage
complex construction projects. If the First Nation does not have this capacity
internally it is wise for them to select and twin with a partner who can provide it;
34
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
• In order to successfully execute construction projects it is important to have
access to the appropriate equipment and the skills to complete the project
effectively;
• Identifying and selecting the right partner requires a significant time commitment;
• It is important to allow enough time to thoroughly complete the due diligence;
• In order for a partnership to work effectively it must be financially self-sufficient
with clear revenue streams and partners with the necessary financial resources to
ensure adequate working capital;
• The parties must agree that there will be some limits on individual autonomy in
order to support the partnership;
• The First Nation must have the political and administrative stability that will
allow the partnership to operate without political interference and abrupt changes
in administrative direction;
• The partnership should have a clear mission/mandate and keep focused on
achieving it;
• The partners should strategically (and ethically) utilize all political relationships
and influence available in order to market themselves and develop/secure
projects; and
• It is critically important to invest the time at the front end of the partnership to
clearly define the roles, expectations, mission and mandate of the relationship and
be able to communicate it effectively to internal and external stakeholders.
Bridge Building and Conflict Management Strategies
In order to ensure a strong and sustainable relationship the partners have identified and
utilized a number of conflict management and bridge building strategies. These include:
• Strong/daily communication – the partners are in daily communication with each
other. That way, when an issue comes up it can surface immediately and be
addressed. They have committed to each other that, when a difficult issue arises
35
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
they will address it head-on and get it resolved before it develops into something
that could threaten their ongoing relationship;
• When a particular project requires debt to finance the initial working capital it
requires formal approval from both parties;
• The potential conflict between employment/profits is mitigated by the strong
leadership who ensure a separation between business and politics; and
• They have a provision to utilize a third-party mediator if a conflict arises that they
are unable to settle amongst themselves.
36
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
3.2.8 Sun Rivers Resort Community
Parties to the Agreement:
• The Sun Rivers Corporation, Kamloops BC
• Kamloops Indian Band, Kamloops BC
Narrative Description of the Collaboration
In 1997, the membership of the Kamloops Indian Band voted by a margin of 74% in
favour of surrendering3 a 480 acre parcel of their land to Sun Rivers Corporation for a
real estate development. The property is located immediately east of the City of
Kamloops on the south-facing slope of the valley overlooking the city. The uses for this
land as approved in the Head Lease are for “developing 2,000 residential housing units, a
school, park, hotel, village centre and 18 hole golf course”.
The development utilizes thermal heat for the entire subdivision. It is one of the only
subdivisions in Canada to utilize this environmentally friendly energy source. When the
subdivision is fully developed it will provide the First Nation with annual tax revenues of
approximately $7-8 million per year. The remainder would accrue to the City of
Kamloops and to the developer for various services that they provide to the landowners.
With the prepaid lease and the market provided by the development, the First Nation was
able to finance and construct a state of the art water treatment facility that supplies
services to the Sun Rivers Resort Community and to many First Nations facilities.
3 The surrender is a formal process wherein the land is assigned back to her Majesty the Queen’s representative – the Government of Canada – who in turn provide a Head Lease (generally 99 years in duration) to the applicant First
37
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Motivation of the Partners and Stakeholders
Sun Rivers was motivated by a desire to profitably develop a unique housing and
recreational facility. The First Nation realized that this transaction could provide them
with a number of immediate and ongoing benefits including:
• Upfront lease payment for the land and ongoing payments over the life of the
lease;
• An ‘inside track’ on employment and business opportunities stemming from the
development;
• An opportunity to increase the tax and revenue base of the First Nation;
• The development would increase the value of other First Nation’s land in the
immediate vicinity; and
• An opportunity to increase the market for a state of the art water treatment facility
to improve the water available to First Nations members.
As well, the City of Kamloops, which has signed on to provide sewer services to the
development, can amortize the cost of their existing system (which was not running to
capacity) across a broader tax base.
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors
• Leadership and communication is critical. The leadership of the Kamloops Indian
Band were visionary and saw the benefits that the development could bring to
their First Nation. They communicated this effectively to their membership who
overwhelmingly endorsed it in a referendum;
• The developer had a clear vision and plan for the development and had the
financial and managerial capacity to execute the plan effectively;
Nation or designate for the purpose of developing projects on this land that are not otherwise permitted under the Indian Act.
38
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
• Once the project had begun, the stakeholders recognized their common interest
and worked in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration; and
• The Kamloops Indian Band had the technical expertise (in the land leasing
department) and had good legal and professional advisers.
Bridge Building and Conflict Management Strategies
• The parties ensured that everything that was written into the agreement was
achievable. They did not make any commitments that could not be kept;
• There is strong communication between the stakeholders. All employment and
contracting opportunities are communicated to the First Nation. The developer
works with them to help them to take advantage of as many opportunities as they
have the capacity to undertake; and
• There are detailed records kept of agreements, commitments and of First Nations
employment/business opportunities at the project. That helps to ensure that the
facts are known and helps to eliminate rumour mongering.
39
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
3.2.9 Tsilqot’in People of Xeni and BC Parks (Ts’yl-os Provincial Park)
Parties to the Agreement:
• The Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government
• BC Parks (Ts’yl-os Provincial Park).
Narrative Description of the Collaboration
In the 1980s the Xeni Gwet’in Elders were becoming concerned that clear-cut areas were
getting very close to their traditional territory4. They were afraid that, if nothing were
done about non-Aboriginal land use practices in the area, it would severely limit the
traditional land use practices of the Xeni Gwet’in Peoples. A number of tribal meetings
were held to discuss the Elder’s concerns. In 1989 a Declaration stating that the Xeni
Gwet’in Peoples would not tolerate mining or clear-cut forestry practices on their
traditional lands was released at a press conference in Vancouver.
As a result of the Declaration the Xeni Gwet’in Peoples became involved with the
Government of British Columbia in a review of the Deferred Planning Area around
Chilco Lake (further development was frozen in this area pending additional studies). A
60 person Chilco Study Committee was formed in 1993/94. The Xeni Gwet’in were one
of three co-chairs (the Ministry of Parks and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs were the
other co-chairs). The Committee, which was made up of all stakeholders in the region,
recommended the establishment of a Provincial Park and a separate Tsilqot'in
Management Zone (TZM)
The recommendations of the Chilco Study became the basis for the development of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Xeni Gwet’in and BC Parks. The
MOU set out in detail what can and cannot occur in the area, what the roles and
40
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
responsibilities of the respective stakeholders are, and established a monthly stakeholder
meeting process. The MOU, which was supported by the stakeholder group, was signed
in a ceremony in Victoria.
The scope of the agreement, which initially focused primarily on park management
issues, has been recently expanded to include issues on lands adjacent to the park. A
management group comprised of Xeni Gwet’in and BC Parks has been created to
consider applications and permits for a variety of land use applications and other matters
that routinely come up.
Motivation of the Partners and Stakeholders
The Xeni Gwet’in Peoples wanted to ensure that they had an active role in the
management of their traditional lands and that clear cutting and mining operations did not
decimate the lands. They also wanted to ensure that they would have access to the lands
for traditional purposes (e.g., hunting, gathering medicinal plants, fishing, ceremonies,
etc.).
The Government of BC wanted to ensure that the management of the area is consistent
with the mandate of BC Parks and to ensure that traditional land use practices of the First
Nations Peoples were allowed to continue. As well, they wanted to establish a process
that allowed input from other stakeholders in the region.
4 The park that was established is located about 220 kilometers west of Williams Lake
41
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors
• The leadership demonstrated by the Xeni Gwet’in Peoples to identify their issues
and priorities and communicate them effectively provided the catalyst for this
collaboration to develop;
• The openness and willingness of BC Parks personnel to consider the priorities of
the Xeni Gwet’in Peoples and work with them to develop a mechanism to allow
the Park to be developed.
• Regular, structured interaction amongst the stakeholders (e.g., the monthly
meetings) and ensuring that all parties attend on a regular basis;
• Developing a specific focus and sticking to it. This keeps potentially divisive
issues like the Treaty Land Entitlement process out of the regular meetings and
park management process;
• A commitment to shared decision-making. The parties stressed that this has to be
a real commitment and a recognition that it may mean that you have to give up
authority in some areas. They also stressed the importance of clearly identifying
the areas of shared decision making so there is a common understanding; and
• A mechanism for other stakeholders to have input into the process (e.g., the
Chilcotin Advisory Group, which acts as a third-party watchdog)
Bridge Building and Conflict Management Strategies
• Regular meetings of the stakeholders are held. Between meetings the
stakeholders regularly contact each other to discuss issues and other aspects of
Park management;
• The regular meetings of the Working Group are open to the public and individuals
are encouraged to attend;
• There is ongoing, informal contact between the stakeholders. (e.g., Parks
personnel and others often drop by the Band Office for coffee); and
42
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
• The First Nation has a regular and consistent communication process to ensure
that their membership is well informed of issues and opportunities emanating
from the management of the Park.
43
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
3.2.10 West Chilcotin Forest Products
Parties to the Agreement
• Ulkatcho First Nation, Anahim Lake, B.C.
• CAT Resources Ltd. Anahim Lake, B.C.
• Carrier Lumber Ltd., Prince George, B.C.
Narrative Description of the Collaboration
Carrier Lumber of Prince George, B.C. had operated a sawmill in the community of
Anahim Lake for a number of years. In 1993 they were forced to close their mill when
they lost their Timber Supply License (TSL) due to a controversial decision by the
Government of the day.
The loss of the Carrier mill was potentially devastating. While the region had a
smattering of tourism outfitters and ranchers, the mill and associated logging operations
was the economic mainstay of Anahim Lake. The loss of the TSL was a significant blow
to Carrier Lumber as it literally reduced the value of their sawmill facility in Anahim
Lake to zero. It was also a huge loss to the residents of Anahim Lake as the mill, its
associated logging operations and spin off businesses was the economic lifeblood of the
community.
The leadership of one individual in the community was responsible for the formation of a
tripartite partnership involving Carrier Lumber, the Ulkatcho First Nation and a group of
50 investors from the community to form West Chilcotin Lumber. This partnership was
uniquely positioned to resuscitate the economy. Carrier Lumber had the facility and
infrastructure. The involvement of the fifty local investors provided both Carrier and the
44
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Government with a concrete demonstration of local commitment and support for the
Ulkatcho First Nation’s (the third partner) application for a TSL.
West Chilcotin commenced operations in 1996 and manufactures studs (2in X 4in X 8ft
lumber), which they sell all over the world.
Motivation of the Partners and Stakeholders
All parties to the agreement were highly motivated. The Ulkatcho First Nation had been
pursuing a TSL for years, but the Government had always declined, telling them to ‘go
find a partner’. The First Nation has always viewed a TSL as a means for them to
achieve a significant share of the work in the forest sector and to establish a base for their
economy.
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors
• All partners must enter into the deal with the view and commitment that it is
better to own a portion of a success story than 100% of a failure;
• The non-Aboriginal partner must recognize, that while every effort will be made
to keep politics out of the deal, that the reality is that is difficult to keep entirely
out;
• All parties must be prepared to compromise on issues and recognize the items that
are important to the other partners and stakeholders, e.g., Chief & Council;
• If all the parties are responsible to a large constituency, then they will work hard
to get a project done. It took approximately one year to put this partnership
together; and
• All partners and stakeholders should be treated with respect.
45
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Bridge Building and Conflict Management Strategies
• Be prepared to deal with the tough issues at the negotiation table and invest the
time to get through the difficult issues. Putting them off will not make them easier
nor will it cause them to go away;
• Identify and put mechanisms in place at the start to deal with tough issues that
may crop up later, e.g., the First Nation’s expectation regarding employment;
• When all parties have equal share in the project and therefore equal to lose, they
are all highly motivated to search for win-win solutions to conflict situations; and
• Include conflict resolution clauses in all formal agreements.
46
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
4 Lessons Learned
The preceding ten case studies supply data and information that can provide insights into
characteristics of successful partnerships and critical issues that influence the success of
partnerships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal interests. These lessons learned
may help existing and future partnerships to enhance their potential for success. The
following analysis, drawn from the preceding case studies, discusses and presents the
lessons learned in three key areas: the motivation of partners and stakeholders; crucial
success factors, and conflict management strategies. This analysis is followed by a
discussion on lessons learned from failed partnerships and an overview of two innovative
projects aimed at encouraging and understanding Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal
partnerships.
4.1 Motivation of Partners and Stakeholders
The partners in the above cases consistently cited motivational factors that are rooted in
self-interest. Of course, in many instances it was enlightened self-interest. For example,
Weyerhaeuser’s collaboration in the Iisaak partnership may have been driven by a need
to mitigate damage and make the best of a difficult situation. Our conclusion is that self-
interest is the motivator in virtually every case we examined. There is nothing
fundamentally wrong with this. In fact, we would argue that a partnership is not
sustainable if it is not in the self-interests of each of the partners.
Our analysis identified five different motivations5 for the ten cases we reviewed. This is
not to suggest that these are the only motivations that can result in successful
partnerships, rather these are simply the motivations that spurred the creation of these
47
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
partnerships. Nonetheless, the presence of one or more of these motivators can signal an
opportunity to develop a partnership.
1. Mitigating the impact of an economic downturn – A downturn in one or more
sectors of the local economy can help create conditions where there is an active
search for opportunities to rejuvenate, or at least mitigate the decline in the local
economy. This type of situation can stimulate creativity and encourage Aboriginals
and non-Aboriginals to seek out opportunities for collaboration, with the expectation
that the collaboration will help each partner to adjust more effectively to the changing
conditions.
2. Make services work better – Federal and provincial governments are recognizing
that many of the services they have traditionally delivered to Aboriginal Peoples are
less effective than they would be if they were delivered directly by Aboriginal
organizations. There are numerous cultural and logical reasons for this, including the
fact that delivery by Aboriginal People is generally done in a more culturally
sensitive manner and with improved community ownership of the process and results.
As well, there is a growing expectation that Aboriginal Peoples have the right to
deliver services to their people.
3. Synergies – Many partnerships are launched because the partners, by working
collaboratively, are able to accomplish much more than they could by working alone
i.e., generating a one plus one equals three phenomenon. This often happens when
one partner has access to financial and operational capacity and the other partner has
an enhanced position in the market and access to labour, natural resources and other
inputs. For example, a non-Aboriginal partner may have the financial and technical
capacity to bid on a contract or launch a project, while the Aboriginal partner has
preferred access to contracts and/or natural resources, access to local labour or other
5 As all of the motivations are basically linked through the self-interest of the parties, the division into five different types of motivation may be seen as arbitrary. However, we believe that it is useful in that it sets out a more systematic process against which the motivation for establishing new partnerships can be reviewed.
48
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
inputs. For instance, in the Gallagher Canyon Development none of the parties,
working independently, could have hoped to achieve a solution as effective as the
agreement that they worked out together. Similarly, it is unlikely that either of the
partners in the Greater Massett Development Corporation could have been successful
in persuading the Department of National Defense to make the financial and asset
commitment that they did. As well, it is extremely doubtful that either party working
alone could have successfully maneuvered the agreement through the eleven different
government departments.
Other examples include the establishment of a park through the collaborative efforts
of the Tsilqot’in People of Xeni and BC Parks, Skwlax Sanders, which was able to
secure and execute construction contracts that neither party could have gotten on their
own, and Iisaak Forest Resources, where a range of environmental and economic
objectives was able to be addressed through collaboration.
4. Environmental and economic opportunities – The opportunity to develop and
implement environmental and/or economic initiatives is often a significant motivator
for Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal partnerships. Often there are opportunities that are
difficult or impossible for one party to develop on their own, but through
collaboration with other stakeholders they can achieve critical objectives. This was
the case with Iisaak Forest Resources and the Tsilqot’in People of Xeni and BC
Parks. In both cases it is doubtful that the environmental or economic objectives of
the parties could have been achieved without systematic collaboration and
partnership.
5. Improve communication and collaboration – For example, participation in the
North Thompson Monthly Licensee Meetings is motivated by the parties’ recognition
that a regular, structured forum that enables them to exchange information on
activities and issues will facilitate improved collaboration and synergies, and
minimize the potential for conflict, making all of their operations more efficient.
49
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
4.2 Critical Success Factors
A review of the partnership examples, coupled with the authors’ own experiences in
Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal partnerships has identified 9 critical success factors that
contribute to the potential for the partnership to be successful. They are listed below in
Alphabetical order.
1. Appropriate motivation – As discussed in the previous section, motivation is
important to the success of any partnership or collaboration. Quite simply if the
partnership does not provide sustainable value to each partner (along the lines of the
five motivations discussed earlier), it is very doubtful that the partnership will be able
to survive over the medium to long term.
2. Communication – With their diverse range of public and private constituents and
stakeholders Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal partnerships have an enormous
communication challenge. Effective and appropriate communication to shareholders,
the First Nation community and often to the larger community (and sometimes
provincial and federal governments) is critical.
3. Financing and Financial Capacity – It goes without saying that partnerships require
financing and the financial capacity to continue operating. While some partnerships
may require much less financing than others (e.g., Monthly Licensee Meetings in
North Thompson), they all require some level of financing. Three finance issues are
seen as critical: a) adequate start-up financing, b) revenue and/or other financing to
meet operating requirements, and c) financial management capacity (the ability to
manage the finances of the partnership).
4. Governance – Partnerships should have a governance structure that clearly outlines
the roles and responsibilities of the partners. Many also stressed that there must be a
strong commitment to shared decision making, i.e., each partner will have to cede
some level of autonomy to the partnership in order for it to operate successfully and
realize the objectives set for it.
50
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
5. Leadership and Commitment – Commitment and leadership are crucial to the
launch and operation of a partnership. The partners must be committed to the success
of the initiative and prepared to assume their own leadership responsibilities. This
includes ensuring that only committed and qualified Directors are appointed and then
keeping politics out of the operation.
6. Management and Operations – A successful partnership must have competent
management, appropriate technical skills and the ability to execute the partnership
plan. It is critical that the partners be realistic in the assessment of their capacity in
this regard.
7. Negotiating the Partnership – In case after case the partners have told us that one of
the most critical things for a new partnership is to invest the time up-front to select
the right partner and make sure that all issues are understood and addressed before
launching operations. They stressed that if they are not dealt with in negotiations the
issues will surface later and be more difficult to deal with.
8. Personnel and Staffing – Partnerships need the right people to manage and operate
their activities. While each partnership is unique, all need people who are
well-qualified, able to work effectively with the various partners and stakeholders. In
some cases (but not necessarily all) it is critical that personnel have the ability to
work effectively in cross-cultural settings.
9. Vision and Objectives – Partnerships should have a clear, succinct vision and
mandate, along with quantifiable objectives. The vision, mandate and objectives
should be developed and agreed upon during the negotiation phase. Planning
activities should be directly related to achieving the vision and objectives and avoid a
flavour of the week approach that diffuses the organizational focus.
4.3 Conflict Management
While it could be considered as a subset of Governance, we feel that Conflict
Management is such a critical success factor that it needs to be addressed separately. It is
51
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
relevant to almost every other success factor. Many partnerships have addressed the
other critical issues and still failed, because conflicts amongst the partners and
stakeholders prevented them from achieving their potential. Our research suggests four
actions that can minimize the risk of debilitating conflict. These are:
1. Partnership Agreement – The partnership agreement should be
comprehensive and should address as many of the tough issues as it is
possible to foresee. Several partners with whom we spoke in our research
made statements to the effect of ‘if there are difficult issues during the initial
negotiation the temptation is there to set them aside and deal with them later.
This is a mistake as they don’t get easier to deal with and they usually come
up during a stressful time making them more difficult to address than if they
had been dealt with initially.’
2. Conflict Resolution Process – A conflict resolution process should be
included in all formal agreements. It is much easier to agree on a process
before a conflict arises. Just knowing that a process is in place can encourage
parties to reach an agreement.
3. Communication – Regular, effective and appropriate communication
amongst the partners and stakeholders (internal and external) was cited as
essential to avoid misunderstandings and conflict.
4. Decision Making Process – Decision making processes should be structured,
well understood and used. This applies at the Partnership, Board and
Operational levels.
4.4 Lessons Learned from Failed Partnerships
The research conducted during the course of this study, together with the authors’
extensive experience in Aboriginal Community Development, has revealed numerous
52
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
partnerships that have either failed or have not lived up to their potential because they
omitted one or more of these Critical Success Factors. There are numerous other
examples of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities or corporations who have not
made an attempt to work together. The participants in these often high-profile examples
may or may not realize the high financial and social costs of this position.
The authors, while cognizant of the sensitive nature of ‘failures’, are also aware of the
folly of not adhering to the maxim, that “If one does not learn from the mistakes of
history, then one is doomed to repeat them.” Following then is an overview of some
examples associated with certain of the critical success factors. (Note: names and
identifying factors have been intentionally omitted)
1. Negotiating the Partnership
This is arguably one of the most important of the critical success factors. A recent
example from an Economic Development Corporation (EDC) will emphasize the
point. Following are some things that were not done.
Not enough investment of time up front: The EDC did not have the
luxury of time to find and research partners for a specific project in a
growing sector of the economy.
A written agreement was not obtained prior to project start. The
partners had numerous verbal discussions, and what was thought to be an
agreement on all issues (based on a draft Memorandum of Understanding).
After the project started and during the preparation of formal agreements,
the non-Aboriginal partner ‘moved the goal posts’ several times. This
partnership seems destined for the courts and all parties will lose out on a
good opportunity.
2. Vision and Objectives/ Communication
In another instance, the Vision and Objectives were agreed upon between the
partners; however, the EDC developed these with no involvement of the general
membership of the communities. When the project did not provide the salary levels
53
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
and advancement opportunities that the membership expected, serious trouble arose
culminating in acts of violence towards the project. The ensuing and belated general
meeting with the membership salvaged the project, but did not mitigate the damage
with the result that no long term relationship or benefits resulted.
3. Communication
In British Columbia, in the post-Delgamuukw era, the good examples of what can be
achieved through pro-active communication are often overshadowed by the negative
examples. These include situations wherein parties refuse to talk, or take on a rigid
Win/Lose negotiating position. Both parties must be prepared to negotiate,
recognizing that each will have areas where flexibility may not be politically or
economically possible. There are numerous high profile examples where this apparent
rigidity and intransigence has resulted in a stand off, with the result that both parties
and their communities lose.
4. Governance
Our research identified a partnership that appears to be doomed because one of the
partners is not fulfilling its roles and responsibilities. The representatives of the Board
of Directors of one party do not attend meetings on a regular basis. Since this is a
business that requires timely decisions by the Board the remaining directors have
made the decisions. This has resulted in further widening of the rift between Board
members, with allegations of unilateral decision-making and ‘not keeping us
informed’.
4.5 Lessons Learned from other Initiatives
There have been several other initiatives launched to examine and support Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal partnerships. While there have been valuable learnings from many of
these, two seem of particular interest to this report and its objective of suggesting a
systematic process for facilitating future partnerships. The following sub-sections
54
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
present them in a summary form. We encourage readers who wish more information on
these initiatives to contact the organizations directly.
4.5.1 First Nations Summit of Chiefs and UBCM
“In 1997 the First Nations Summit and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities
(UBCM) co-sponsored the first province-wide Community-to-Community Forum in an
effort to increase dialogue between representatives from First Nations governments and
local governments. The event was successful and precipitated the creation of the
“Regional” Community to Community Forum Program, which provided funding for
individual or regional groups of First Nations governments and local governments to
meet and initiate a dialogue on key issues of mutual interest6.”
The proponents obtained funding to sponsor 32 regional forums from the Ministry of
Aboriginal Affairs (8) and from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (24). Interested
communities. This funding, which was provided for up to 50% of the costs, was available
through a straightforward application process to Regional Districts and municipalities
who could demonstrate that had a local First Nations government that shared their
interest.
An in-depth evaluation of the Community-to-Community Forum program is in process.
Preliminary indications are that the program was a resounding success. Perhaps one of
the most lasting benefits of the program will be that it served as the catalyst for the first
ever discussions between the two local governments. In that sense it was ground
breaking.
6 Union of British Columbia Municipalities, Regional Community to Community Forum Evaluation, Draft Report, August, 2001
55
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
4.5.2 Knowledge Network Series
In 2001, the Knowledge Television Network in partnership with the Ministry of
Community Development, Co-operatives and Volunteers developed the four part series,
The Power of the People: Building Stronger Communities. This series examined the
social, economic and environmental pressures that affect towns and communities
throughout BC. The show examined how the citizens of 8 communities in BC are
“confronting the challenges” and are “turning economic uncertainty into prosperity7”.
“Each of the communities that were spotlighted in the video series discovered
fundamental factors that led to success in their journey toward economic development.
Some journeys took longer than others but each identified success factors in achieving
their objectives:”
1. People count
2. Long term visions, Short term actions
3. Attitudes make a difference
4. Resourcefulness
5. Broad Perspective
6. Practical and Pragmatic
This series was excellent in many respects and identified some important success factors.
One of the 8 communities was the Sun Rivers example of an Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal
partnership at Kamloops, also featured here in Section 3.2.8
7 www.knowtv.com
56
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
5 From Individual to Community – The Case for Community Level Facilitated Partnership Development
The preceding sections have presented and discussed a range of partnerships between
Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals in British Columbia, reviewed some lessons learned
from failed partnerships and briefly touched on two other initiatives to understand and
promote partnerships. For the most part the partnerships are producing real benefits for
the partners and for the communities in which they are located, helping them to address
pressing economic and social concerns. However, the partnerships are all of a discrete or
ad-hoc nature – that is to say that none were initiated as part of a strategic initiative to
launch Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal partnerships.
All of the partnerships studied in this report, and in fact all of the partnerships that we
reviewed in British Columbia, were launched at the initiative of one or more of the
partners and were motivated by a particular set of circumstances (see earlier discussion
on motivation). None were part of an overt, community level partnership facilitation
process. In fact, other than the UBCM initiative, which seems to be more of a funding
program than a comprehensive partnership facilitation process, we found no evidence of
any sort of facilitated community-level process to support the systematic identification
and development of Aboriginal / non-Aboriginal partnerships.
The closest to a facilitated process was the experience in two recent joint-venture
seminars (January 2000), Fort St. John and Terrace, which focused on developing
business and economic relationships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal partners.
These seminars, which were both one-off events with no facilitated follow-up,
nonetheless demonstrated that there is both a strong willingness to explore this area in a
facilitated manner, and that real partnership opportunities do exist. The seminars, which
were supported by the Northern Development Commission, brought indigenous and non-
indigenous people (about 30 people in each seminar) together for two days to identify
mutually beneficial opportunities and create strategies and action plans for developing
57
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
them. The seminars were successful, with participants rating them very highly, and a
number of real opportunities identified and development strategies created. However, all
participants suggested that there should be follow-up and support to provide ongoing
facilitation and assistance to the partnership development and community bridge-building
process. This is consistent with the information received from those interviewed during
the current partnership review. There was a general perception that, while
Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal partnerships represented a significant development
opportunity (especially for rural and remote communities), little is currently being done
to systematically support and encourage partnership development.
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and communities, especially those in rural areas of
BC, are facing unprecedented challenges as they strive to secure a sustainable future for
themselves and their children. Both communities face social and economic challenges
that require new approaches and innovative solutions. The 1999 Provincial Health
Officer's annual report indicates that while many Aboriginal communities have improved
their quality of life, in comparison to the non-Aboriginal population Aboriginal people
are more likely to be living in poverty, unemployed, and without a high school diploma,
especially if they live on-reserve. Non-Aboriginal communities also face difficult
challenges in trying to secure a stronger social and economic future including recovery
from economic downturn in the resource sector.
Partnerships have the potential to make a fundamental positive difference in their social
and economic future. Improving Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relations can help BC
communities overcome impediments to social and economic progress. Building on best
practices of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal partnerships can provide insight on how
communities can work together to address common concerns to build a healthy
sustainable future. Cooperation and collaboration between Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal communities can mobilize and focus local and regional resources to affect
positive change for all residents. "Partnerships are indicators of a willingness between
58
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people to work together to address issues of common
concern and build sustainable communities." 8
The challenge is to build on the experiences of current partnerships and research
initiatives and develop the tools and methodologies that can support a replicable
partnership development process. The experiences of the partnerships that are reviewed
in this report, along with other community and Aboriginal development research9 provide
important information that can be used to inform and support individual partnerships and
facilitated partnership development processes.
The following Section suggests an action plan for developing a facilitated process to
support the type of community-wide bridge building and collaboration that we believe
will spawn the creation of numerous partnerships and result in more sustainable futures
for BC communities.
8 Fraser Basin Council. Special Report, Spring 2000. 9 The Ministry has supported numerous studies and research projects that have compiled valuable information. See Bibliography (UBCM’s Community to Community Joint Forum, Knowledge Network Series, Strengthening Aboriginal Participation in the Economy, etc.)
59
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
6 Building on the Results: Recommendations for Developing a Community Partnership Initiative
This section will seek to apply the results of the above analysis to the objective of
developing a Pilot Community Bridge Building and Partnership Development Initiative.
The recommended process for the Pilot will include facilitated partnership identification
and development processes and a facilitated community bridge building initiative. It is
our expectation that, after fine-tuning the process in pilot communities it could be
developed as a stand-alone toolkit that communities could use to assist them to take
control of their social and economic future.
6.1 Model Partnership and Bridge Building Process
The following paragraphs set out in general terms a framework for a community wide
Partnership Development and Bridge Building Process. It is the expectation of the
authors that this framework could serve as the basis for the development of a community
specific process for two or more pilot communities. (The experience of the pilot
communities will likely provide information that will enable further refinement of the
framework prior to rolling out the initiative on a wider basis.)
The process would involve the concurrent launch of an economic and social bridge
building pilot project designed to address both the social and economic aspects of
community bridge building. Our intention is to use this initial project to better
understand how this process can be applied to support community development in British
Columbia and to develop the tools and support systems that would enable the process to
be replicated in other communities.
We envisage a process that would develop and support two concurrent tracks, one
focusing on identifying and developing partnership opportunities and the second
addressing the challenge of community and social bridge building between Aboriginal
60
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
and non-Aboriginal communities. The two tracks, although separate, would inter-relate
and provide support to each other.
The economic bridge building process will seek to identify economic opportunities that
could be developed through collaboration across racial and ethnic boundaries (e.g.
Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal joint ventures and other partnerships similar to the ones
explored earlier). This process will include:
• Identifying the key players and meeting with them to understand their
interests and opportunities they envisage;
• Hosting at least a two-day workshop on structuring and negotiating joint-
ventures and other collaborative forms of enterprise. The workshops will also
address the issue of cross-cultural communications and relationships. The
workshops will take a practical focus – identifying real opportunities and
bringing together potential partners. We expect that the end result of the
workshop will be the identification of at least two joint-venture opportunities
and agreements between specific individuals/organizations to continue
exploration and development of the opportunities;
• Ongoing consulting and logistical support to the fledgling partnerships; and
• Continued work with stakeholders to identify and facilitate additional
partnerships and opportunities.
The social/community bridge building track would be based on a sustained facilitated
dialogue process, working with targeted individuals to understand and develop strategies
for addressing long-standing disputes/divisions in the community. The application of this
model was examined by Gifty Serbeh-Dunn, who has recently completed an initial phase
of a sustained dialogue process in the Cowichan Valley as part of her thesis requirements
for a Master of Arts in Conflict Analysis and Management (Royal Roads University –
2000).
61
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Our model for Sustained Dialogue is based on Saunder’s definition and model that he
describes in A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and
Ethnic Conflicts
A systematic, prolonged dialogue among small groups of representative
citizens committed to changing conflictual relationships, ending conflict
and building peace. It is more structured than a good conversation; it is
less structured than a formal mediation or negotiation. It has purpose,
destination and product. As a microcosm of their bodies politic,
participants absorb events in the communities around them and together
learn to design ways to change the relationships that cause conflict
(Saunders 1999, p. 12).
Exhibit 6-1 Community Transformation Process
Bridge Building Process
Partnership Development
Community Status (Current)Declining economy
Social problemsCross-cultural tension
Missed economic opportunities
Community Status (Future)Stabilized/growing economy
Social problems being addressedCross-cultural tension easing
Economic opportunities captured
Community Transformation through Partnership and Bridge Building Proces
The two streams will interact in both structured and unstructured ways as the participants
become more engaged in the process of bridge building and community healing and
development. Each process could be utilized as a communication vehicle to continuously
reach out to additional elements and stakeholders in the community to both inform them
on the process and motivate them to become involved in the bridge building exercise.
The following sub-section sets forth strategy and recommendations that the consultants
feel will enable the launch of 1-2 pilot initiatives to test and refine this model prior to the
development of a stand-alone toolkit and province wide rollout process.
62
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
6.2 Selecting Pilot Project Communities
While we believe that this model can eventually be adapted for application in a broad
range of settings, we recommend that any communities selected as pilot project sites meet
seven critical criteria. They are (in alphabetical order):
1. Economic downturn (recent) – When a community is experiencing or about to
experience a significant economic downturn it is much more receptive to new
ideas and approaches. Individuals, businesses and the community at large are
facing serious economic challenges and there is a willingness to try new and
innovative solutions;
2. Financial resources – In order to engage in a comprehensive partnership
development and bridge building initiative the communities (Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal) should be in a position where they can commit financing towards the
cost of the process. It is expected that Federal and Provincial governments would
contribute significant resources to the process, however for symbolic and
commitment reasons it is absolutely critical that communities put up some of the
financing;
3. History of collaboration – There should be some history of collaboration
between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community. While it does not have
to be a long history or involve collaboration on major initiatives, we believe that
the two groups should at least have some experience of working together;
4. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community – A pilot community must
comprise sufficiently large groups of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.
Although the two groups do not have to be equal in size we would have serious
reservations about selecting a pilot community that is predominantly made up of
one group or the other;
5. Commitment – Community leadership (Mayors, Chiefs, Band Councils, etc.)
should be fully committed to the initiative and also be prepared to actively engage
in the process. Committing financing is one demonstration of commitment;
63
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
6. Leadership – The Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities should both have
strong leadership that is committed to playing an active role in the process;
7. Meaningful economic opportunities – There should be meaningful business and
economic opportunities available to prospective partners. There is little point in
selecting a pilot community that does not offer any realistic economic
opportunities. We would argue that, especially at the pilot stage, it is important to
achieve a ‘quick win’ that can provide the community with tangible evidence of
the potential of the initiative.
In order to properly assess and refine the process, we suggest that it should be piloted in
two communities initially. The following sub-section sets out the suggested process for
launching the pilot projects.
6.3 Next Steps - Launching a Pilot Project
The following eight steps set out our suggested process and budget for launching a bridge
building and partnership development pilot project.
1. Select community – Prepare a list of potential pilot communities (we have identified
two communities that we feel would make ideal candidates as pilot project sites, and
presented the analysis at the end of this sub-section). Ideally, two pilot communities
should be selected by the Ministry based upon the above criteria. (The proposals
submitted to the Ministry and the Northern Development Commission through the
Invitation to Quote on Regional Community Development Initiatives may be
useful in preparing an initial list of potential pilot communities.)
2. Discussion/decision by pilot communities – Discussions should be initiated with
potential pilot communities to confirm their interest in participating in a pilot project
of this nature.
64
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
3. Planning phase – The planning phase will bring the communities together to engage
in the development of a plan to implement the pilot phase. This phase should be
facilitated by someone who is familiar with the scope and intent of the overall project
objectives and who understands what is required to achieve those objectives. While
we strongly suggest that the pilot phase contain a number of specific components (see
below) it is critical that the communities, as primary stakeholders in the process, be
actively engaged in designing the plan. The planning phase would include:
a. Initial meeting of community stakeholders to review the objectives of the
pilot phase, agree on the process for developing the pilot phase workplan
and determine roles, responsibilities and timeframes for preparing the pilot
phase workplan;
b. Completion of tasks and activities as determined in above meeting
including preparation of a draft workplan (including communication plan)
and budget for pilot phase;
c. Meeting of community stakeholders to review draft workplan and budget;
and
d. Finalizing draft workplan and budget, and preparing proposal(s) to finance
year one. Potential funders are identified below in the discussion on
suggested activities in year one.
The anticipated budget for this phase is in the $20,000 to $30,000 range, depending
on the remoteness of communities, transportation costs, etc.;
4. Start-up and operation – Launch the pilot project based on the agreed upon
activities;
5. Six-month assessment – Given the pilot nature of this initiative we believe that an
assessment of each project should be completed at about the six-month point. While
this is too early to assess the overall success of the total initiative, it should provide
valuable information on what, if any, revisions are required and on the potential value
of developing a toolkit to support replication of the process in other communities;
65
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
6. Decision – The results of the six-month assessment should be reviewed and a
decision taken on proceeding with the development of the steps discussed in the next
point;
7. Prepare toolkit, communications plan and roll-out strategy for other
communities – Based on the experiences in the first six months of the pilot projects;
and
8. Begin implementing rollout strategy
66
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Suggested Year One Activities
Table 6-2 below sets out a range of suggested Year 1 activities and financial sources (the
exact scope and schedule of activities should be determined during the planning phase
[Step 3 above])
Exhibit 6-2 Suggested Year 1 Activities and Financial Sources
Activity Potential Financial Sources (The following are not necessarily presented in the order in which we would expect them to be implemented) 1. Identify partnership opportunities and prioritize; 2. Identify major interests in community and begin
discussions to establish a Sustained Dialogue process;
3. Launch communication plan (which may include a monthly newsletter and/or other appropriate communication materials;
4. Host a public information meeting or meetings to advise the stakeholders of the process and expected outcomes;
5. Hold a 2-Day Aboriginal / non-Aboriginal partnership seminar (similar to the ones hosted by the Northern Development Commission in Fort St. John and Terrace)
6. Organize a Sustained Dialogue/Bridge Building group and begin bi-weekly sessions;
7. Provide appropriate follow-up support to the partnerships identified in the seminar and any others partnerships that require assistance;
8. Continue working with stakeholders to identify and nurture partnership opportunities;
9. Identify partnership role models and utilize them to assist others;
10. Hold at least one more public meeting in the first six-months;
11. Conduct six-month review; and 12. Revise program and continue as appropriate.
• Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services
• Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
• Aboriginal Business Canada
• Western Diversification
• Community Stakeholders
• Local Industry
• Foundations (our research has discovered a Foundation that may be interested in financing part of the Sustained Dialogue process)
67
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Note: We expect that the first several months would require considerable facilitation and that after six months the role of external consultants in facilitating partnerships would decline considerably. However, the Sustained Dialogue process will require a specially trained facilitator for at least one year. Potential Pilot Communities We have utilized the above criteria to undertake a preliminary analysis of two potential pilot communities, Port Hardy and Ucluelet. As the analysis in Exhibit 6-3 below indicates, both meet all of the criteria with the exception of community commitment, which can only be determined through discussion and demonstration. Exhibit 6-3 Analysis of Two Potential Pilot Communities
Criteria Port Hardy Ucluelet Economic Downturn √ The closure of the local fish processing
plant and a nearby mine as well as the contraction of the forest sector has decimated the economy.
√ The closure of the local fish processing plant and major downsizing in the forest sector has left the community without a major sector
√ Tourism has some promise but has been slow to develop in this community.
Financial Resources √ The 3 local First Nations and the District of Port Hardy either have or have access to sufficient financial resources to contribute to the process
√ The 2 local First Nations and the town of Ucluelet either have or have access to sufficient financial resources to contribute to the process
History of Collaboration
√ The Gwa sala First Nation has an agreement with the District of Port Hardy for sewer and water services that has worked well for both parties.
√ The ‘two sides’ get along well on numerous issues
√ The three local First Nations are one of the largest employers in the region and are already a mainstay of the local economy
√ The First Nations participate with the town, the Regional District and several Government departments on the Central Region Board as part of the Interim Measures Agreement.
√ They work together on the Regional Aquatics Management process.
√ The Toquaht First Nation and the town have had meetings regarding expanding the collaboration around their shared harbor.
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community
√ The population of the three local First Nations is quite large, comprising approximately 1/3 of the local population.
√ The population of the local First Nations is quite small; however, both they and the town recognize their relative importance in the region.
Commitment √ This cannot be determined until reviewing the concept with the primary stakeholders and they are in a position to make a decision on their level of commitment/interest
√ This cannot be determined until reviewing the concept with the primary stakeholders and they are in a position to make a decision on their level of commitment/interest
Leadership √ The Mayor of Port Hardy is an active community developer. He a former Chairman and current Board Member of the Coastal Community Network and has an engaging personality and high profile.
√ The Mayor of Ucluelet is a vocal advocate of Economic Development.
√ The Chief of the very small Ucluelet First Nation (pop 12), Bert Mack is a high profile and successful businessperson and a strong leader
Economic √ The fish farming industry is growing √ Tourism has huge potential. Ucluelet
68
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Criteria Port Hardy Ucluelet Opportunities rapidly in this region and now employs over
400 employees. √ There appear to be significant undeveloped
tourism opportunities. √ There may be opportunities for local value
added manufacturing.
has lagged well behind the Tofino area in this regard.
√ Joint fisheries management has potential.
69
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
7 Conclusion
Based on our review of the ten partnerships and our analysis of other issues and factors
we conclude that Aboriginal / non-Aboriginal partnerships offer a major economic
opportunity to numerous BC communities. There are opportunities to extend and expand
the value of individual partnerships through a facilitated partnership development and
community bridge building initiative. The preceding section sets forth a suggested plan
for developing such an initiative. We recommend that the Government of British
Columbia and other stakeholders in the development of the province’s Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal communities give serious consideration to implementing such a plan.
Attachments Page 1
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
1. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
BC British Columbia
CODA Central Okanagan Regional District
DND Department of National Defense
EDC Economic Development Corporation
FN First Nation
FRBC Forest Renewal British Columbia
GMDC Greater Massett Development Corporation
INAC Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
LSIB Little Shuswap Indian Band
MB MacMillan Bloedel
MOE Ministry of Environment
MOF Ministry of Forests
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
PMQ Personnel Married Quarters
RDEK Regional District of East Kootenay
TSL Timber Supply License
TZM Tsilqotín Management Zone
UBCM Union of British Columbia Municipalities
WDA Wayne Dunn and Associates
Attachments Page 2
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
2. Information Sources
The following pages detail the primary information sources that were used to research the
case studies in this report and those presented in the earlier progress report. Not
mentioned are the hundreds of individuals and numerous reports that have influenced the
author’s understanding of Aboriginal partnerships during our (collective) 35 years of
work in the field of Aboriginal economic development.
The authors of the report wish to thank the following individuals who so graciously made
themselves available for meetings and telephone conversations during the course of
research for this project.
Meetings and Telephone Conversations
Sorted by organization
Name Title Organization Allan Pineo Band Manager Adams Lake First Nation Claire Marshall Aboriginal Relations BC Hydro Steve Mazur District Manager BC Parks, Caribou District, Tarel S. Quandt BC Persons with AIDS Society Cameron Beck Community Planner Carrier Chilcotin Tribal Council, Bill Cordoban Owner Carrier Lumber, Gerry Stelsmaschuk
Policy Analyst Carrier Sekanni Family Services
Wayne d’Easum Chief Administrative Officer
Central Okanagan Regional District,
Mathew Ney Consultant Chapman Business Consulting (Lake View Meadows)
Janice Rose Administrator Chemainus Community College Robin True First Nations Liaison College of the Rockies Russ Helberg Mayor Community of Port Hardy, Judy Birch Manager, Aboriginal
Relations Dept. of Environment, Government of BC
Doug Krogel Land Use Planning and First Nation Liaison
Dept. of Environment, Government of BC
Ron Creber Manager, Aboriginal Relations
Dept. of Environment, Government of BC
Attachments Page 3
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Name Title Organization Frankie Craig Senior Policy Advisor Dept. of Indian and Northern Affairs Wanda Stachura Social Development
Operational Specialist Dept. of Indian and Northern Affairs
Richard Krentz Partner Hiwus Feast House on Grouse Mountain Darlene Luke Executive Assistant Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tibal Council Chief Sophie Pierre
Chief, Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tibal Council
Alex Wolf Lawyer/Manager Legal Services Society Randall Martin Band Manager Little Shuswap Indian Band Bill Lee Metis Commissioner Metis Commission for Children and Families Rob Enfield Forester Ministry of Forests, Tina Donald Councilor North Thompson First Nation, Kevin Brown GM Old Masset Development Corporation, Clarence Louie Chief Osoyoos First Nation Jeannine Cook People’s Law School Lee-Anne Crane Administrator Regional District of East Kootenay, Gerry Sanders Owner Sanders Construction Dave Monture XD Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, Mike Anderson None Skeetchestn First Nation, James Atebe Community Planner Sto Lo Nation, Georg Schurian President Sun Rivers Development Jennifer Turner Forester Tolco Inc, Harvey Filger Chief Executive Officer Tsechaht First Nation, Roger Williams Chief Tsilqot’In First Nation, Bob Sankey Former XD Tsimshian Tribal Council, Alison McNeil Senior Policy Analyst Union of BC Municipalities Bernadette Spence Board Member Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family
Services Agency Frieda Enns Executive Director Vancouver Police & Native Liason Society Clinton Mutch EDO Village of Masset, Economic Development
Commission, Diane St. Jacques Mayor Village of Ucluelet, Steven James Manager West Chilcotin Forest Products Ltd.,
Attachments Page 4
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Reports and Documents
Title Author Published by Date
Cameco Aboriginal Relations Wayne Dunn
Cameco Corporation November 1998
Community to Community Joint Forum: A Dialogue Between First Nations and Local Governments in British Columbia (Final Conference Report)
First Nations Summit and Union of British Columbia Municipalities
March 2001
Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal Partnerships
Fraser Basin Council Spring 2000
The Changing Resource Development Paradigm: Maximizing Sustainable Local Benefits from Resource Development
Wayne Dunn
Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers
January 2001
A Call to Action: Our Roots Go Deep, Our Hopes Stand Tall (Delegates Kit)
Metis National Council and Royal Bank of Canada
April 1998
Guide to Aboriginal Organizations and Services
Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs
June 12, 2000
Healing Wounds: Sustained Dialogue in the Cowichan Valley. The Role of Identify in Cross Cultural Conflict
Gifty Serbeh-Dunn
Royal Roads University (Master’s Thesis)
September 2000
Developing Partnerships: 9th Annual Report on Aboriginal Participation in Mining
Sub-committee of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Mineral Industry
December 1998
Case Studies on Aboriginal Joint Ventures: Northern Resource Trucking
Wayne Dunn
Wayne Dunn & Associates Ltd.
September 1999
Attachments Page 5
Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Title Author Published by Date
Strengthening Aboriginal Participation in the Economy: Report of the Working Group on Aboriginal Participation in the Economy to the Federal-Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs and National Aboriginal Leaders
Federal-Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs and National Aboriginal Leaders
May 2001
Review: News from the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Fall 2000
Regional Community to Community Forum Evaluation, Draft Report,
Union of British Columbia Municipalities,
August 2001
Websites
Website Address (Aboriginal Canada) Portal provides a link to Strengthening Aboriginal Participation in the Economy: http://www.aboriginalcanada.gc.ca/abdt/interface/interface2.nsf/engdoc/3.html