The MBC Workshops:
Reflections on Co-management

by Robbie Keith

Rosie Siglialuk
Tuktoyaktuk, spring 1987.

Migratory Birds: A Cluster of Issues
Much of the debate about migratory birds centres on problems of management. The consultation workshops on the Migratory Birds Convention (MBC) reveal a cluster of issues. There is growing concern for the sustainability of species and populations in many areas. It is clear that information about game bird populations, reproduction, and harvest is insufficient. Scarcity is creating difficult harvest allocation choices, and with those choices a greater sense of urgency and stridency in the views being advocated by the various interests. Harvesting migratory birds as a subsistence tradition versus harvesting birds for sport or recreational hunting are divergent views around which much of the debate revolves. The view that significant habitat losses throughout North America continue is widely held. And, of course, the concern among northerners, both native and non-native, that they are denied equitable access to game is an on-going irritant.

Calls for Co-management
From this cluster of problems there is a growing interest in redesigning the arrangements through which responsible and interested parties participate in the management of migratory game birds in Canada. Native peoples across the country are calling for shared management regimes that include both native and government representatives. The native view is based on aboriginal rights, enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982, treaties between aboriginal peoples and the government of Canada, and modern comprehensive land claim agreements now covering much of the Canadian far North. The native claim is one of jurisdiction. Management, including amendments to the MBC, should, it is argued, be seen in a co-management context.

A somewhat different perspective has emerged as well. A number of non-aboriginal interests believe that multi-stakeholder and multijurisdictional arrangements especially throughout entire flyways, are needed if waterfowl conservation is to be successful. Recreational hunting, conservation, and naturalist organizations take the position that co-management involving only natives and government parties may fail to accord sufficient interest to their concerns. In this view, all interests, including natives, environmentalists and governments would convene to undertake various management functions. These distinctions serve to sharpen the notion of the native hunt as the "hunt of rights" and the recreational hunt as the "hunt of privilege".

What is Co-management

Pinkerton ( 1989) refers to co-management as negotiated agreements ranging from very legal arrangements to those that are quite informal for the purpose of carrying out various resource management activities. In her review of several co-management systems she found they may:

Migratory Birds and Co-management Experience
Across Canada there are a number of co-management arrangements that now deal with migratory game birds. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement provides for the Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Coordinating Committee, a joint native-government committee that advises federal and provincial ministers on fish and wildlife. One of the working groups of the coordinating committee is the "Waterfowl Working Group". Native representatives at the Montreal MBC workshop viewed the current advisory arrangements as workable to date, but that further powers for the coordinating committee should be considered. Under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement two wildlife co-management councils were established, the North Slope Wildlife Management Advisory Council for the Inuvialuit area of the North Yukon, and the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (N.W.T.) for the Inuvialuit area of the western Arctic. As part of the co-management approach the WMAC (NWT) has developed a set of twenty-two management-oriented, "Principles for the Conservation of Migratory Birds in the Inuvialuit Region". As well, they have initiated a harvest study program in which detailed annual data are gathered for each community. Similar arrangements are about to be implemented in the eastern Arctic under the terms of the Nunavut Final Agreement and in the Yukon under the Umbrella Final Agreement, the land claim of the Council of Yukon Indians. Each of the Yukon's fourteen First Nations agreements includes a Regional Resource Council that will function in ways much like those in the western Arctic and Quebec. In addition, there will be a Yukon-wide board, the Fish and Wildlife Management Board, also a co-management organization. On December 22, 1992, Parliament passed legislation to settle the land claim of the Gwich'in of the lower Mackenzie River region. In doing so, they too agreed to co-management arrangements for wildlife, including migratory birds. Then in November of this year, the Inuit of the central and eastern Arctic approved their land claim agreement and with it the establishment of their territory "Nunavut". The federal Cabinet approved this agreement in March 1993, and it now awaits ratification by Parliament. Under the terms of this agreement the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board will operate as a co-management body of Inuit and government appointees to plan and manage for wildlife, including migratory waterfowl.

While comprehensive land claim agreements have ensured co-management for many native peoples in the North, it is not the case for most Indian and Metis people in Canada. Status and non-status Indians along with Metis participants in the MBC workshops (and in submitted briefs) pointed out that they do not yet have agreements with either the federal or provincial governments regarding migratory birds and other wildlife. They argue that they too have aboriginal rights and jurisdiction, which along with traditional management systems that have been shown to be effective, should be evidence of the need to establish co-management arrangements that respect their inherent right to self-government.

The question of managing habitat was seen by all partcipants at the workshops to be central to the sustainability of waterfowl populations. Aboriginal people argued that their land claim agreements and treaties, along with their conservation strategies afford important opportunities to set habitat management in a co-management context. Non-native hunting and conservation organizations saw their efforts as part of a wider habitat protection and rehabilitation initiative for which they believe they should be partners in cooperative management approaches.

The workshop participants also recognized that local and even regional management initiatives, while necessary, are not sufficient in the case of species which migrate through much of North and Central America. Entire flyway systems are needed and suggestions were made to link local and regional management groups up and down the length of the flyways. Population studies, habitat protection programs, stock enhancement initiatives and harvest allocation and monitoring were some of the activities that participants suggested should be shared on a flyway basis.

Co-Management Questions
While there was broad support in the workshops for co-management systems to be developed for migratory birds in Canada, no single view of what forms and processes might be pursued, emerged. Rather, a number of questions remain, the answers to which will shape much of what will happen to co-management and migratory birds.

  1. At what levels should co-management arrangements be developed for migratory birds? While some argue for such a system from local through to national levels, there are other views. Some native people believe that in keeping with their inherent right to self-government that local area management should be the concern of native peoples. Co-management would then be implemented at regional, national and flyway levels. This view is challenged, especially where other users at local levels believe they should share in the resource. If multi-stakeholder committees ar e not possible, then at the very least, they believe that governments should be involved at the local level.

  2. How can flyway co-management be arranged to ensure effective communication and coordinated action? While flyway councils are composed of people from up and down the flyways, local harvesters are seldom a part of the deliberations. The necessity for local involvement in population and harvest monitoring is given as an example of the value of connecting local management units over large areas.

  3. How will current initiatives by some provincial governments to develop wildlife and habitat co-management systems with their native peoples and other stakeholders affect the evolution of co-management as local, regional and provincial obiectives are integrated?

  4. How will a federal mandate, such as that for migratory birds, be linked to provincial and territorial co-management initiatives?

  5. What policy and program approaches are needed for meeting the legal and constitutional obligations of the federal governments to native people whose treaty, or lack of treaty, has precluded management arrangements for migratory game birds to date?

REFERENCES
Pinkerton, E. (ed) 1989. Cooperative Managemcnt of Local Fisheries: New Directions for Improved Management and Community Development, UBC Press.

Dr. Robbie Keith is an associate professor in the department of Environmental and Resource Studies at the University of Waterloo and is a CARC board member.

"In This Issue..."