Protected Area Co-Management in the Yukon

PROTECTED AREA CO-MANAGEMENT IN THE YUKON A Thesis Presented to The FacuIty of Graduate Studies of The University of Guelph by JASON DAVID THOMSON in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Arts April, 1998 O Jason David Thomson, 1998 National Library Bibliothéque nationale I*m of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services seMces bibliographiques 395 WeUhgtm Street 395. nie Wellington OFtawaON KIAM ûttawaON K1AON4 canada canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Librafy of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantid extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels rnay be p~tedor otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT PROTECTED AREA CO-MANAGEMENT IN THE YUKON Jason David Thomson Advisor: University of Guelph, 1998 Professor R G. Kuhn A nurnber of characteristics, unique to northem Canada, have together resulted in the adoption of hciamentally different procases for establishg protected areas in that region fkom those traditionally utilised in the south. Govemmental recognition of these characteristics, in combination with the 1993 settlement of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement PA)comprehensive land claim, has led to the development of unique arrangements in the Yukon for protected area CO-managementby state and aboriginal interests. This study airns to evaluate changes to Yukon protected area management strategies pursuant to the settlement of aboriginal claims and increased local cornmunity involvement. Based on prirnary data, recommendations are proposed in order to facilitate the overcoming of constraints to effective CO-managementof Yukon protected areas. Inte~ewswere conducted with 30 key informants during fieldwork in Whitehorse and Haines Junction, Yukon, from June 9 to August 9, 1997. Nine principles necessary for the achievement of protected area CO-managementgoals are identified, and participants' perspectives are examined and presented in terms of similarities and differences according to key and measurable attributes associated with these principles. Although the various joint management structures are still in an early stage of development, results indicate that significant progress toward the goal of protected area CO-managementis being achieved. Thank you to the many people who have contributed to the completion of my research over the past two years. 1am most gratefûl to my advisor, Dr. Richard G. Kuhn, for invaluable insights and suggestions, unbridled enthusiasm and interest, concise (collectable?!) flowcharts and (especially !) diagrammatic patience. A huge thank you also to Dr. Reid Kreutzwiser for numerous constructive comments, both during foxmulation of the research proposal and after reading the ha1thesis cirafi. As well, thanks to my graduate colleagues with whom 1 have lurked about, both inside and (occasionally) outside the Hutt, over the course of the past two mernorable years. Your fiiendship and support has meant a great deal to me. Completion of this research would aiso not have been possible without the assistance of numerous individuals in the Yukon. Thank you to al1 those who took the time to contribute imrneasurably to the final product, both during my brief time in the north, and in the subsequent rnonths, during which time 1 received a substantial amount of relevant information via email. In particular, 1 am indebted to Liz Hofer, Heidi Istchenko, Allan Koprowsky, David Neufeld, and Doug Olynyk (and many others) for the materials and clarifications they provided in the months following my trip north. This research was primarily supported through a gant received from the Northem Scienti fic Training Program. Financial assistance was also received fiom the Latomell Scholarship Fund. Finally, thank you to my wonderfil family and fiiends; your constant encouragement and belief in me has been ongoing and enormously comforting. 1 could not have done it without your love and support. What a blowout it has been! This thesis is dedicated to rny grandmothers, Jean McCurdy and Jessie Thomson: "ntere 's a lot to know. " 4.1 RESULTS AND EVALUATION........................................................................ 61 Ecological and Cultural Protection............................................................ 61 1s an ecosystern approach to protected area management being adopted?........................................................................................ -61 1s critical wildlife habitat being protected through creation of new protected areas? ...................... ..,. ............................................... -63 Do local people gain an official ownenhip stakehoice in the management of protected area resources on which they depend? ....................................................................................................... 65 Do the agreements lead to improved data collection and therefore an improved infornation base with which to manage protected area resources?....................................................................................... 70 Are regional species management plans being developed and implemented?................................................................................ -72 1s cultural understanding being promoted or enhanced by the management systern?.................................................................... -74 Ecological and Cultural Protection Surnmary ................................ 77 Clearly Defined Boundaries....................................................................... 78 4.3.1 Are the biop hysical and culturd boudaries well-defined? ........... -78 4.3.2 Are ownership and allocation of resources clearly identified? ....... 81 4.3.3 1s there clarity in jurisdictional responsibility and regdatory authority?...................................................................................... -83 4.3.4 Clearly Defined Boundaries Summary .......................................... 85 Shared Information ..................................................................................... -86 4.4.1 Are structures in place for consultation and cooperation in decision-making between federal, territorial, and First Nations governrnents, governments and comrnunities, and within communities?................................................................................. 86 4.4.2 1s traditional knowledge recognised by federal and temtorial govemments? 1s there integration of traditional knowledge and scientific howledge in decision-making? ....................................-91 4.4.3 Does the public have increased accessibility to information?........ 94 4.4.4 1s there recognition of an equal relationship between First Nations' govemments and federdtemtonal govemments? ......... -96 4.4.5 1s there networking between structures created through agreements and other resource management agencies?................. 97 4.4.6 Shared Information Summary 98 . ........................................................ Continuty and Dedication .......................... ... ............................................ -99 4.5.1 1s there a dedicated core group consistently applying pressure to advance the process of agreement implementation?..................... 99 4.5.2 1s there continuity of knowledge, skills and interest in key actors?.......................................................................................... 101 4.5.3 Continuity and Dedication Sumrnary ..................................... 1 03 Management Flexibility and Responsiveness......................................... 104 4.6.1 Are adaptable and situation specific management regulations and procedures being developed and implemented?.................... 104 4.6.2 1s a commitment being demonstrated by federal and territorial govemment departments to new structures, processes, and working arrangements?............................................................... 107 4.6.3 1s there an ability to respond quickly to local community or resource concems, conflicts, or crisis situations?....................... 113 4.6.4 Management Flexibility and Reçponsiveness Summary ............. 115 Conflict Resolution................................................................................ 116 4.7.1 1s there a prescribed method of negotiating conflicts arnong local resource users, or between users and government representatives?............................................................................ 116 4.7.2 Have thestructures createdthroughtheagreements fostered increased tut, respect, or understanding between govemment and resource users? ..................................................................... 1 18 4.7.3 Conflict Resolution Summary................................................. 1 22 Enforcement.................. ,., ........................................................................ 122 4.8.1 Do the agreements have the necessary legal and cornrnunity

Load more