Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development

  • 744 views
Uploaded on

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 …

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.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
744
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships:Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development 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 wayne@waynedunn.com
  • 2. iAcknowledgementsThe consulting team of Wayne Dunn & Associates Ltd. wish to acknowledge the sincereco-operation and support they received from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal andWomen’s Services, the Ministry of Water, Air and Land Protection, the Office of theProvincial Health Officer, and the numerous individuals and organizations involved inAboriginal partnerships. While it is impossible to directly thank and acknowledgeeveryone who was so generous with their time, information and ideas, a number ofindividuals deserve special mention for their valuable contribution to this process.We are grateful to the Project Team of Mr. Dale Leitch, Executive Director, CommunityTransition Branch of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services andto Mr. Brent Mueller, Ms. Catherine Rodgers, also of this Ministry, for their inputthroughout this process. Their quick responses, insightful suggestions and ideas, andtheir enthusiastic collaboration throughout this project have been extremely valuable.Mr. Tim Cottrell, formerly Assistant Director of the Community Transition Branch wasalso an indispensable contributor to the project prior to his transfer to the Ministry ofSustainable Resource Management.The Consultants and the Project Team would like to acknowledge the advice andassistance from Ms. Lisa Nye and Mr. Graham Dragushan of the Ministry of CommunityAboriginal and Womens Services; Ms. Judy Birch of the Ministry of Water, Air andLand Protection; and Cathy Hull of the Office of the Provincial Health Officer.Throughout our research numerous individuals from various organizations throughout theprovince made themselves available for interviews (many more than once). While wecannot thank everyone directly, we would like to acknowledge Allan Pineo, ClaireMarshall, Steve Mazur, Tarel S. Quandt, Cameron Beck, Bill Cordoban, GerryStelsmaschuk, Wayne d’Easum, Mathew Ney, Janice Rose, Robin True, Russ Helberg,Doug Krogel, Ron Creber, Frankie Craig, Wanda Stachura, Richard Krentz, DarleneLuke, Chief Sophie Pierre, Alex Wolf, Randall Martin, Bill Lee, Rob Enfield, TinaDonald, Kevin Brown, Clarence Louie, Jeannine Cook, Lee-Anne Crane, Gerry Sanders,Dave Monture, Mike Anderson, Georg Schurian, Jennifer Turner, Harvey Filger, RogerWilliams, Bob Sankey, Bernadette Spence, Alison McNeil, Frieda Enns, Clinton Mutch,Diane St. Jacques and Steven James. To those we may have missed, please accept oursincere apologies and our heartfelt thanks.WDA Project Team: Wayne Dunn Bob Isbister Gifty Serbeh-Dunn Bernadette Spence Randall LevineAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 3. iiTable of Contents1 Introduction and Background .................................................................................. 12 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 ........................................................................................... 73 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................................................................................ 434 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...................................................................................... 555 From Individual to Community – The Case for Community Level Facilitated Partnership Development ....................................................................................... 566 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................................................................. 637 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 69AttachmentsTable of Abbreviations and AcronymsInformation Sources and BibliographyList of ExhibitsExhibit 2-1 WDA Partnership Analysis Framework© ...................................................... 6Exhibit 6-1 Community Transformation Process ............................................................. 61Exhibit 6-2 Suggested Year 1 Activities and Financial Sources ..................................... 66Exhibit 6-3 Analysis of Two Potential Pilot Communities ............................................. 67Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 4. iiiExecutive SummaryIn British Columbia, there is an ever-increasing need for First Nations to partner withprivate industry as well as local and regional public sector entities, to enhance thepotential to achieve shared goals of diversification, sustainable employment andcommunity economic and social development. While there are an increasing number ofsuch partnerships being developed the authors argue that a facilitated process fordeveloping and supporting partnerships would substantially increase their number andimpact on the economy of British Columbia (especially rural and remote areas who havebeen hardest hit by the downturn in traditional resource based economies).The report which follows is the result of efforts by the British Columbia Ministry ofCommunity, Aboriginal and Women’s Services to gain a greater understanding of thenature of existing partnerships of this type, as well as to develop an initiative foridentifying and supporting community-based collaboration efforts.In the development of this report, several case analyses were undertaken within theprovince, the results of which have provided a body of data and information which wasused to identify a number of lessons learned and critical success factors forAboriginal/non-Aboriginal partnerships. From the information collected, ten specificstudies were analyzed which reflect a level of regional coverage and industry variationwhich cumulatively offer a valid and relevant cross-section of current partnershipactivities.The analysis of these various collaborations has highlighted the following critical successfactors in the development of an Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal partnership framework forthe future (see Section 4.2 for full information and text). All partners should have clear and appropriate motivation to collaborate Regular, effective and appropriate communications should be maintained Partners should have the capacity to finance their participation in projectsAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 5. iv Roles and responsibilities within the partnership should be clearly outlined, with a strong commitment to mutual decision-making Partners should have committed leadership who will endeavour to keep politics out of the operations of the partnership An appropriate level of managerial and operational competence must be present, as well as technical capacity which meets the requirements of the project A sufficient amount of front-end negotiating time to ensure appropriate partner selection and mutual understanding of issues Partners should have qualified personnel to manage their activities Partnerships should have a clear, succinct vision and mandate as well as measurable objectives.The findings also detail several challenges faced by collaborative endeavours, includingthe need to develop sustainable revenue streams and ensure the effective management offinances and resources. Further challenges included balancing the desire to maximizeemployment with the economic realities faced by the communities, reconciling individualautonomy to support effective partnerships, and ensuring the administrative and politicalstability of partner First Nation(s) while keeping politics out of the negotiations andoperations.The lessons learned through the examination of the case studies provide the basis for thedevelopment of a community partnership initiative for the Province. Such a processwould involve two fundamental, concurrent activities to support collaborative efforts: • Economic bridge building • Social/community bridge building.The economic bridge building component reflects the need to identify and fostercollaborative economic opportunities through joint ventures or partnerships. The processshould include the identification of potential partners and developing a mutualunderstanding of the interests of stakeholders, as well as the delivery of highly practicalworkshops on creating and negotiating the partnerships themselves. Finally, theAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 6. vprovision of on-going support and consultation will be critical to ensure the developmentof the partnerships.The social/community bridge building aspect of the framework reflects the need forsustained dialogue between stakeholders. The goal of this activity is to address long-standing divisions in the community, and ultimately to change conflicting relationships,and foster a level of trust and respect that would serve to increase collaboration and trust(and thus increase the number and sustainability of Aboriginal/non-Aboriginalpartnerships).In order to create this initiative, pilot communities should be identified and qualifiedbased upon the following recommended criteria: • Community has been subjected to recent economic downturn • Partners have access to sufficient financial resources to cover costs of project • Community has proven history of collaboration between Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal community • Community is comprised of sufficiently large groups of both populations • All partners display commitment to project • Strong leadership evident amongst partners • Meaningful and practical economic opportunities availableThrough the course of the creation of this report, two potential pilot communities havebeen identified which meet the above criteria, with the exception of the level ofcommitment made, which cannot be determined until later in the process. Both PortHardy and Ucluelet represent excellent examples of communities where pilot initiativesof the provincial partnership framework could be developed.The review and analysis of the case study partnerships identified in this report serve toreinforce the belief that Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal partnerships offer a major economicopportunity to several communities in the province, both in the expansion of existingAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 7. vipartnerships, and in the identification and fostering of potential collaborations in thefuture. The suggested plan presents an opportunity for the Government of BritishColumbia to work proactively with these community partners and take a leading role inthe fostering of such value-added initiatives.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 8. 11 Introduction and BackgroundThe Community Transition Branch of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal andWomen’s Services of the Government of British Columbia (BC) initiated this ResearchProject on Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships to develop an improvedunderstanding of such partnerships and identify opportunities for the Ministry to supportcommunity level collaboration between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups. ARequest for Proposals was issued and the BC firm Wayne Dunn & Associates Ltd.(WDA) was engaged to undertake the project.The project was launched in early February and a progress report was submitted onFebruary 23, 2001. The Progress Report included mini case studies and preliminaryanalysis of sixty-four1 examples of collaboration between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginalinterests2. The Progress Report was circulated to various government stakeholders forcomment and observation. On March 9, 2001 the Consultants met with the Ministry todiscuss their comments on the Progress Report and identify those partnerships suitablefor more detailed study and analysis.Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities alike face social and economic challengesthat require new approaches and innovative solutions. While in general terms, manyAboriginal communities have improved their quality of life in recent years, incomparison to the non-Aboriginal population they are more likely to be burdened by alack of employment opportunities, under-educated and living in poverty. Non-Aboriginalcommunities also face difficult challenges in trying to secure a stronger social andeconomic future, including recovery from economic downturns in the resource sector ordealing with inner-city poverty. Improving relations between these two groups can helpBC communities overcome impediments to social and economic progress.1 Subsequent to the completion of the Progress Report, preliminary analysis was conducted on four additionalpartnershipsAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 9. 2Cooperation and collaboration between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities canmobilize and focus local and regional resources to affect positive change for all residents.Insight on how these communities can work together to address common concerns inbuilding a healthy sustainable future can be provided through the profiling of bestpractices of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal partnerships.This Report builds on and makes extensive use of prior research sponsored by theMinistry and the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers and National AboriginalLeaders report on Strengthening Aboriginal Participation in the Economy. Section 2describes the methodology and approach employed by the Consultants to collect the dataand undertake the various analyses.The following Section (3) presents ten case studies of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginalpartnerships in five different sectors of the BC economy. Section 4 summarizes thelessons learned from these partnerships; examining in particular what motivated theformation of the partnerships, what were the critical success factors and then discusseshow the issue of conflict management is addressed. As well, this Section reviews lessonslearned from ‘failed partnerships’ and discusses lessons learned from two other Ministry-supported partnership initiatives.In Section 5 the Consultants argue that, while individual and ad-hoc partnerships betweenAboriginal and non-Aboriginal citizens of BC have made a positive impact on the socialand economic fabric of BC, the impact could be significantly greater if a facilitated andsystematic partnership development and bridge building process was implemented at acommunity level.2 A listing of the sixty-eight partnerships and the results of the analysis conducted on them is presented in Appendix 1.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 10. 3Section 6 outlines what such a process might look like and then goes on to list criteriathat would help to select potential pilot community sites. This section also presents adetailed plan for launching and financing a pilot project that could, after testing andrefinement, be rolled out to communities across the province. The final section containsthe Consultants conclusions.The following section summarizes the approach and methodology utilized by theConsultants and discusses limitations of the research.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 11. 42 Methodology and Approach2.1 ApproachIn order to achieve the objectives of the assignment within the time and budgetconstraints, a two-stage research and analysis process was developed. The initialresearch stage involved the identification of partnerships, desktop research to gatherpreliminary data on the identified partnerships, and preliminary analysis of eachpartnership. A data collection framework was developed to ensure consistency of dataacross the various partnerships reviewed.The geographic focus of the research was on the province of British Columbia. However,the Progress Report included several Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal partnerships fromnorthern Saskatchewan, as this area has been particularly successful at the developmentof economic and business collaboration between First Nations and other interests.Anecdotal evidence suggests that Northern Saskatchewan is a world leader in Aboriginalbusiness and economic development. For this reason, the researchers felt that it wasworthwhile to review appropriate examples from this area. However, after consultationwith various stakeholders it was decided that due to: the unique history of Aboriginalissues in BC; the ease with which BC examples can be followed-up by interested parties;the fact that there may be historical and geographic challenges to applying lessons fromoutside BC; and the project’s budgetary limitations, it was appropriate that detailedresearch and analysis should focus exclusively on BC partnerships.The Consultants and the Ministry team identified seventeen partnerships in five basicsectors (Environment, Social, Economic, Municipal and Other) that were suitable forfurther research and analysis. Recognizing that time and budget constraints, coupled withthe need to contact and interview major stakeholders in each partnership would make itimpossible to complete the research on all seventeen partnerships in the time available, itAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 12. 5was agreed that the Consultants should attempt to develop 6-10 detailed case studies,with at least one from each sector. This report contains ten such case studies and furtheranalysis.2.1.1 Data Sources and Collection MethodologiesData sources and collection methodologies utilized by the Consultant included: • Telephone interviews and meetings with First Nations officials, federal, provincial and municipal officials, representatives of non-Aboriginal partners, and other significant stakeholders in various partnerships; • Review of published documents and reports; and • Internet research.A complete listing of information sources is presented in Attachment 2.Data Verification and CrosscheckingDue to the preliminary nature of the information required, the 68 partnership overviewsthat were reviewed in the initial stage did not necessarily include data crosschecking andverification. Many of the overviews presented in the initial stage were based on only onedata source. However, the detailed partnership case studies presented in this report allinvolved multiple data sources to ensure accuracy of data and to enable the Consultants tosynthesize the viewpoints of significant stakeholders.2.1.2 Data Collection FrameworkIn order to ensure consistency of data, the Consultants developed a uniform datacollection framework for each Phase of the project (see Attachment 3 for the DataCollection Frameworks utilized for each Phase). The Frameworks were designed toallow researchers to quickly gather and organize pertinent information. The Phase IFramework was designed to provide sufficient information to enable a preliminaryAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 13. 6 analysis of each partnership and allow the project team and the client to identify which partnerships warranted further research and development as more detailed case studies. The Phase II Data Collection Framework, which was used for interviews with each partner and stakeholder, was designed to allow the Consultants to develop a more detailed understanding of each partnership and the factors that supported or inhibited its success. The project team recognized that even though it was unlikely that data on each item in the framework would be available for each partnership, it was useful to have a framework that could easily capture and organize whatever data was available. This enabled a more systematic and consistent analytical process, which allowed the identification of critical success factors across the range of partnerships reviewed. The overall data gathering and analysis process is summarized in Exhibit 2-1 below. Exhibit 2-1 WDA Partnership Analysis Framework© Development Legal/Structural Identification Operational Capacity Accomplishments ReplicablePartnership Research of Critical Stakeholders Development Aboriginal Partnership and Analysis Success Financial External issues Employment Case Study Factors Aboriginal Barriers and Procurement Constraints Community Characteristics 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). Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
  • 14. 7The draft plan for a Community Bridge Building Initiative is presented in Section 6.2.2 Limitations of ResearchThe consultants recognize that there are significant limitations on the preliminaryresearch 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 inaccuraciesAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 15. 8 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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 16. 9Despite the limitations noted above, the Consultants are confident that the research andanalysis has provided findings that are interesting and useful and which will serve toguide the establishment of comprehensive partnership development and bridge buildinginitiatives in British Columbia. These findings and analyses are presented in subsequentSections.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 17. 103 Case Studies and Individual Partnership Analysis3.1 Summary of Partnership Case StudiesThe following list summarizes the detailed case studies reviewed in this report andspecifies the sector that they are from.1. Environment • Tsilqotin People of Xeni and BC Parks2. Social • Carrier Sekanni Family Services3. 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 Resources4. General • Sun Rivers Resort Community – Kamloops Indian Band and Sun Rivers5. Other (Municipal) • Gallagher Canyon Agreement • Lake View MeadowsDetailed case studies of the above ten partnerships are presented in the following sub-section. The case studies are arranged in alphabetical order.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 18. 113.2 Individual Case StudiesThe following ten sub-sections discuss the ten case studies referred to earlier. Specificcontacts and methods of data gathering utilized for gathering information are summarizedin the Appendix Information Sources.3.2.1 Carrier Sekani Family ServicesParties 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 ServicesNarrative Description of the CollaborationCarrier Sekani Family Services is essentially a service delivery agreement entered into in1991 between the Provincial Ministry of Child and Family Services, Indian and NorthernAffairs Canada (INAC) and the ten First Nations. This is a multi-year financingagreement that allows the First Nations to organize a service delivery agency (CarrierSekani Family Services) to deliver child and family service programs to First NationsPeoples in the area. The agreement is similar to others that are negotiated throughoutCanada involving First Nations, INAC and the relevant provincial Ministry.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 19. 12INAC’s policy governing the Mission Statementfinancing of Child and Family "With the guidance of our elders, Carrier SekaniService Agency funding stipulates Family Services is committed to the healing andthat there must be a minimum of empowerment of Aboriginal Families by taking500 children in the area before direct responsibilities for health, social and legalthey will enter into an agreement services for First Nations people residing in Carrier(the purpose is to ensure effective Sekanni territory."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 ofCarrier Sekani.Motivation of the Partners and StakeholdersThe First Nations’ interest was to ensure that their membership received child and familyservices in a culturally appropriate manner. The Federal and Provincial governmentrecognized that traditional mechanisms for delivering child and family services to FirstNations Peoples was not working and that they could be enhanced through First Nationscontrolled delivery structures.Lessons Learned and Critical Success FactorsInterviews and research have identified several lessons learned and critical successfactors. 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 areasAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 20. 13 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 StrategiesDue to the nature of the collaboration – an agreement with Federal and Provincialgovernments to deliver specific services to specific clients, there did not appear to be anyovert bridge building strategies undertaken. Conflicts with other governments areaddressed through negotiations; other conflicts (staff, member nations, etc.) are addressedthrough the personnel manual and organization by-laws.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 21. 143.2.2 Gallagher Canyon AgreementParties 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 DistrictNarrative Description of the CollaborationAfter nearly five years of negotiations the Westbank First Nation and the CentralOkanagan Regional District (CORD) signed a five-year services agreement (GallagherCanyon Agreement) in early 2000. The agreement includes other local stakeholders andcovers how services are provided to some fee simple land that the First Nation purchasedseveral years ago.After purchasing the land the First Nation wanted to convert it to Reserve status. Theland had several easements to local Improvement Districts to allow for the provision ofwater to their constituents. As well, the City of Kelowna had constructed a road throughthe land in question. In order to fully understand the implications for all stakeholdersCORD asked the Federal Government to undertake a thorough examination of thesituation prior to converting the land to Reserve Status.In about 1995 CORD and Westbank began negotiations to develop a framework fordevelopment of this land. While the original intent of the land purchase was to provideland for First Nation’s housing, everyone recognized that the agreement needed to beflexible enough to enable the stakeholders to accommodate changing requirements in thefuture.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 22. 15The agreement addresses the allocation of various developmental costs, the number ofhomes, types of buildings allowed and provides for the continuation of the easements. Italso protects the rights of the several service providers on this land.CORD also has another agreement with Westbank which addresses payment for servicesprovided to approximately 7,000 non-Aboriginals who live on Reserve land but utilizeCORD services (recreation centre, emergency vehicles, etc.). CORD felt that thisagreement did not provide the Regional District with adequate payment for servicesprovided so they took the First Nation to court to attempt to have the agreementrenegotiated. The court case failed but relations between the parties remained cordial.According to CORD the First Nation acknowledges that there is a problem with thecurrent 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, thestakeholders have already begun negotiations for a follow-up agreement that would alsoaddress 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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 23. 16Lessons 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 StrategiesThe parties identified two specific bridge building and conflict management strategiesthat 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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 24. 173.2.3 Greater Massett Development CorporationParties to the Agreement: • Old Masset First Nation • Village of MassetNarrative Description of the CollaborationThe Greater Massett Development Corporation (GMDC) had its genesis in 1994 whenthe Federal Department of National Defense (DND) decided to close the local militarybase (GMDC was incorporated in 1996). The base contained: 190 residences; barracksthat could accommodate up to 65 people; a recreation centre; a curling rink, andadministration buildings. Costs to dismantle and decommission the facilities werepegged at $3 million.Coupled with significant downturns in the forestry and fisheries sectors, and the closureof a local refueling station, the village of Massett and the Old Massett First Nation werefacing a major economic downturn. The military base had traditionally pumped about $5million dollars per year into the local economy – its closure could be devastating. DNDwas facing a major public relations challenge as the closure of the base could push thelocal economy over the economic brink and DND could become the public scapegoat.Necessity brought the three major stakeholders (Old Massett First Nation, Village ofMassett and DND) together to try and develop a scenario that would lessen the economicand social impact of the base closure. The First Nation and the Village had priorpartnership experience with each other – two years earlier they had combined their sewerand water systems. This benefited both parties by improving overall service and creatingoperational efficiencies and economies of scale.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 25. 18The stakeholders decided that the economic impact of the base closure could be mitigatedsomewhat with the formation of a development corporation that would be jointly ownedby the First Nation and the Village. DND agreed to transfer the base infrastructure andfixed assets, along with the $3 million decommissioning budget to the newly formedGreater Massett Development Corporation.The GMDC was formed as the vehicle to liquidate the assets, and look after the fundsfrom the sales of Personnel Married Quarters (PMQs) and other former DND properties.Approximately $8 million in revenue was generated through these sales. The GMDC wasto re-invest these funds into the two communities to enhance local economicdevelopment activities. GMDC presently utilizes these funds to support the operations ofthe Old and the New Massett Economic Development offices. DND also provided theGMDC with a $3,000,000 barracks demolition fund which is presently invested in itsown account, the interest of which is only to be used to subsidise the operation of theMassett recreation centre.Each partner (the village and the First Nation) appointed five Directors to the GMDCBoard and they began the difficult process of launching a jointly owned corporation andaffecting the transfer of assets from DND. The partners spent considerable time at thefront end developing a strategic plan for GMDC. This afforded the opportunity tosurface potential conflict areas and fully discuss the strategic direction of the corporationand the communities.Transferring the assets from DND proved to be a Herculean challenge involving 11different government departments and many layers of bureaucracy. The $3 million wasput into a GMDC managed ‘Greenfield Fund’ which is used to assist local entrepreneurs.The former administration centre was converted into an incubator mall, which hasalready spawned some successful local businesses. The GMDC operates the recreationfacilities for the benefit of the entire community. Western Diversification providesproject specific financing to assist GMDC.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 26. 19GMDC holds monthly Board of Director meetings, and two large meetings per year thatare open to the general public; an Annual General Meeting and a Public Meeting.Communication with the public and consistent attendance at Director’s meetings hasbeen a critical issue for GMDC.Decisions are made by a ten-person Board of Directors (each partner appoints five Boardmembers). At one point GMDC undertook a major communication initiative, goingdoor-to-door in the community to inform community members of the corporation and itsstrategic direction (they used the strategic plan as a guide).Although there have been numerous challenges, including ensuring that there are revenuestreams to match expenses (e.g., operating community recreation facilities), and it is tooearly to determine its long term success, GMDC has had a positive impact on the GreaterMassett community. It has inspired a can-do attitude and helped to mitigate the socialand economic impact of the base closure. It has established infrastructure that isdedicated to supporting the economic rejuvenation of the entire community. As well, ithas significantly increased cross-cultural interaction and fostered improved relationsbetween the First Nations and non-First Nations communities.The main financial challenge facing GMDC is that there are no significant revenuesources. The operations of the GMDC and the costs of operating the recreation center arefunded from the rapidly depleting capital base that was generated by the liquidation ofDND assets.However, despite the intentions of all parties, there have been few jobs or entrepreneurscreated other than in the operation of the recreation centre. There have been few directbenefits for the community, other than the 8 to 11 total employees of the GMDC. Thepartnership appears to face serious challenges as the $11 Million in seed money that theystarted with has been seriously eroded and continues to be burned at a high rate by thecosts of the recreation centre. Some people that were interviewed indicated that theAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 27. 20partnership has actually worsened relationships between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal elements of the community.Motivation of the Partners and StakeholdersThe partners and stakeholders were all motivated by enlightened self-interest. OldMassett First Nation and the Village of Massett were searching for opportunities tomitigate major economic shocks to the community. DND and the Federal Governmentsought to close the base with a minimum negative impact on the local economy and ontheir reputation.The original motivation was to split the DND assets equally between the twocommunities. This has not changed since its inception; both communities would like toshare in the assets equally.Lessons Learned and Critical Success FactorsThe 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;Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 28. 21 • 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 StrategiesThere were a number of processes and strategies that helped to mitigate the impact ofconflicts 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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 29. 223.2.4 Iisaak Forest ResourcesParties to the Agreement: • Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. (formerly MacMillan Bloedel Ltd) • Nuu-chah-nulth • Ahousaht First Nation • Hesquiaht First Nation • Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation • Ucluelet First Nation • Toquaht First NationWhile not officially ‘partners’ in Iisaak, numerous international environmentalorganizations such as Greenpeace were critical stakeholders who had shaped theconditions that stimulated the creation of Iisaak.Narrative Description of the CollaborationWorldwide attention was brought to bear on the logging industry in Clayoquot Sound inthe 1990s. International organizations applied tremendous pressure on companieslogging (clear-cutting) the old growth forests in the area, disrupting logging activities andalienating markets in Europe and North America.Clayoquot Sound is the traditional home of the Central Nuu-chah-nulth Aboriginalpeople. They have an interest in reclaiming their lands to promote economic, social andcultural development for their people. These people include five First Nations, with thenorthern most three, the Hesquiaht, Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht residing withinClayoquot Sound with the Ucluelet and Toquaht bordering to the south.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 30. 23Before the escalation of conflict, Weyerhaeuser (MacMillan Bloedel (MB)) the operatorthroughout the 1990s was purchased by Weyerhaeuser in 1999) had an annual harvest ofover 600,000 cubic metres in Clayoquot Sound, which generated over $100 million ineconomic activity. This activity was a significant component of the local economysupporting many local businesses and providing a revenue base to municipal, provincialand federal governments.Initially the local First Nations, who had been largely excluded from the economicbenefits associated Weyerhaeuser’s (MB) operation, supported and were supported by theinternational organizations that were leading the anti-logging protest. In July 1996, FirstNations hosted an all-stakeholder meeting to discuss a resolution to Clayoquotcontroversy. In January 1997, Weyerhaeuser (MB) laid off 110 workers with a decisionto 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 inClayoquot Sound. However harvests would be reduced to 40,000 cubic metres per yearand be put-off for three years while value-added forest product opportunities wereinvestigated. Harvesting resumed in Clayoquot in August 2000.Iisaak Forest Resources will harvest up to 40,000 cubic metres per year. That is less than10% of the volume that had been sustained before the dispute began. First Nationscontrol Iisaak, not Weyerhaeuser (MB), and they have options to increase theirownership, to 100% at some point. Weyerhaeuser (MB) will continue to work withIisaak, providing start-up working capital and management experience.The intent of the partners is that the area will be managed first for conservation valuesand then for economic benefit. This enabled the support of many of the internationalorganizations that had previously led the protest against Clayoquot logging.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 31. 24Iisaak is committed to an eco-forestry approach, logging in second growth areas,supplying wood to local value-added wood converters and pursuing eco-certificationsthrough a process agreed to by the international organizations. Some watersheds andother 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 fromIisaak 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. Sodespite the positive feeling of the parties supporting Iisaak, it is clearly too early toconclude 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 FactorsA number of lessons can be drawn from this experience:Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 32. 25 • 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 StrategiesThe Iisaak partnership grew out of one of the biggest conflicts in BC history. Partnershave learned to work together in support of their common interest. First Nationsleadership and moral commitment to balance environmental preservation with thecreation of economic opportunities for their members provided the catalyst to bridge thechasm that had developed between the parties.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 33. 263.2.5 Lakeview MeadowsParties to the Agreement: • Shuswap First Nation, Cranbrook, BC • Regional District of East Kootenay, Cranbrook, BC • Private Developer (Lakeview Meadows)Narrative Description of the CollaborationIn the late 1990s the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK) and the Shuswap FirstNation faced some difficult challenges. The popularity of the area as a summer resortresulted in extensive development along the shores of Lake Windermere. All of thehouses and cottages were on septic fields, which were causing pollution levels to rise tounacceptable 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 andlengthy referendum process, with no guarantee of receiving approval.Due to geology, geographic proximity and a greater degree of regulatory autonomy, itmade sense to explore the option of having the Shuswap First Nation finance andconstruct the sewer and water system and sell services to RDEK. The parties already hada history of cooperating. The First Nation had a service agreement with the RegionalDistrict for fire protection and the Regional District had a member on the First Nation’sDevelopment Review Board. As well, the First Nation saw this as a lucrative opportunityto protect the environment and make a profit at the same time.The situation came to a head when a private developer wanted to develop LakeviewMeadows subdivision and needed sewer and water services in order to do so. The FirstNation negotiated a pre-payment of service fees and an agreement to pay design costs andconstruction costs from the edge of the reserve to the Lakeview Meadows subdivision.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 34. 27They leveraged the prepayment and commitment to secure the capital to develop thesystem. Today the First Nation supplies sewer and water services to the LakeviewMeadows subdivision and has a new system for their own members. RDEK has amanagement 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 tooperate the system. Financing for the system was entirely private – the First Nation wasable to bypass traditional government financing processes for on-reserve infrastructure,allowing them to proceed with the development in a timely fashion (sources indicatedthat the average time to process government financing for on-reserve infrastructure is 36-42 months).Motivation of the Partners and StakeholdersThe partners had a history of working together and recognized that they could realizeadvantages by collaborating on this initiative. They both wanted to reverse theenvironmental damage that was caused by septic systems. RDEK wanted to avoid thechallenges of securing regulatory approval and raising $15 million capital to finance anew system. The First Nation wanted to utilize their geographic and geologicaladvantages to develop a profitable business opportunity.Lessons Learned and Critical Success FactorsA number of lessons learned and critical success factors emerged when reviewing thispartnership 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;Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 35. 28 • 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 StrategiesIn addition to a history of trust and collaboration developed through earlier initiatives thepartners stressed the importance of regular communication as a mechanism for bridgebuilding and managing potential conflict. The agreement also included a clausecommitting the parties to binding arbitration if they were unable to come to agreement ona particular issue.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 36. 293.2.6 Monthly Licensee Meetings – North ThompsonParties 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 areaGuests and Environmental consultants sometimes participate in the meetings.Narrative Description of the CollaborationIn the early 1990s the stakeholders in North Thompson’s forest and other naturalresources began meeting regularly (monthly) to exchange information and inform eachother of their plans and priorities. Although the meetings were nominally about allresource sectors, forestry related issues were generally the primary focus. Thesemeetings have continued over the past decade and have become an important and regularfeature of resource management and development in the North Thompson.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 37. 30A major benefit of the process is that it provides an ongoing opportunity for dialogue andinteraction amongst the stakeholders. This dialogue assists the stakeholders to get toknow 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 forumwhere they can discuss the most efficient means to get it with the major industryparticipants. In some cases it may be that TOLCO is harvesting the needed species in thegeographic 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 stakeholdersto get to know each other better. For instance, several non-Aboriginal participants notedthat they have a greater appreciation for the range of issues and concerns being addressedby First Nations – not just those directly related to local resources. As well, theparticipants in the meetings often get together for social events that help to further theirmutual understanding.Motivation of the Partners and StakeholdersThere was and still is a plethora of motivations for the individual stakeholders toparticipate. 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;Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 38. 31 • 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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 39. 323.2.7 Skwlax/Sanders Construction Ltd.Parties to the Agreement: • Little Shuswap Indian Bank, Chase BC • Sanders & Company, Merrit BCNarrative Description of the CollaborationSanders and Company, a Merritt based road construction and heavy equipment companyhad 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 wouldbe beneficial for both parties to form a company to undertake smaller (under $10 million)road construction and heavy equipment projects. Skwlax/Sanders Construction Ltd. wasformed with the LSIB holding a 51% interest. Each party nominated two persons to theBoard 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 seniormanager with LSIB, make the day-to-day decisions of the company, on a collaborativebasis. Any projects that require financing must be approved by the LSIB. Projectmanagers make Day to day project decisions.Sanders brought technical expertise and equipment to the partnership while LSIB broughtmanpower, information on upcoming projects and the ability to meet Aboriginalprocurement guidelines. LSIB also brought administrative capacity and are tasked withmaintaining the company’s accounting system.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 40. 33The company had some initial challenges as it sought to balance First Nation member’sdesire to maximize employment with the economic reality of operating a project basedcompany in a cyclical sector. After much discussion it was agreed that, whileemployment and training opportunities for First Nation’s people is a strong priority,employment must be based on project revenue. The partners closely monitor thefinancial profit and the employment and training that the projects generate.In addition to the profits and employment, the partnership produced an unexpectedbenefit in terms of addressing at least one person’s way of thinking about Aboriginalpeoples. On one project Skwlax Sanders deliberately engaged a subcontractor who had areputation as a vocal redneck and a staunch opponent of Aboriginal development. As aresult of working directly with the company and its Aboriginal workers, this person’sattitude made a 180-degree shift.Motivation of the Partners and StakeholdersThe motivations of both partners were enlightened self-interest. The LSIB wanted moreemployment opportunities for First Nations members, an opportunity to share in theprofits of local construction work, and the ability to have a more substantial localbusiness presence. Sanders wanted to develop more work and to ensure that its work inthe area was sustainable by developing a partnership with a leading influencer of localconstruction opportunities.Lessons Learned and Critical Success FactorsAlthough the partnership is still in its early stages, a number of lessons learned andcritical 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;Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 41. 34 • 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 StrategiesIn order to ensure a strong and sustainable relationship the partners have identified andutilized 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 arisesAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 42. 35 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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 43. 363.2.8 Sun Rivers Resort CommunityParties to the Agreement: • The Sun Rivers Corporation, Kamloops BC • Kamloops Indian Band, Kamloops BCNarrative Description of the CollaborationIn 1997, the membership of the Kamloops Indian Band voted by a margin of 74% infavour of surrendering3 a 480 acre parcel of their land to Sun Rivers Corporation for areal estate development. The property is located immediately east of the City ofKamloops on the south-facing slope of the valley overlooking the city. The uses for thisland as approved in the Head Lease are for “developing 2,000 residential housing units, aschool, park, hotel, village centre and 18 hole golf course”.The development utilizes thermal heat for the entire subdivision. It is one of the onlysubdivisions in Canada to utilize this environmentally friendly energy source. When thesubdivision is fully developed it will provide the First Nation with annual tax revenues ofapproximately $7-8 million per year. The remainder would accrue to the City ofKamloops 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 wasable to finance and construct a state of the art water treatment facility that suppliesservices 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 – theGovernment of Canada – who in turn provide a Head Lease (generally 99 years in duration) to the applicant FirstAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 44. 37Motivation of the Partners and StakeholdersSun Rivers was motivated by a desire to profitably develop a unique housing andrecreational facility. The First Nation realized that this transaction could provide themwith 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 thedevelopment, can amortize the cost of their existing system (which was not running tocapacity) 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 theIndian Act.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 45. 38 • 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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 46. 393.2.9 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 CollaborationIn the 1980s the Xeni Gwet’in Elders were becoming concerned that clear-cut areas weregetting very close to their traditional territory4. They were afraid that, if nothing weredone about non-Aboriginal land use practices in the area, it would severely limit thetraditional land use practices of the Xeni Gwet’in Peoples. A number of tribal meetingswere held to discuss the Elder’s concerns. In 1989 a Declaration stating that the XeniGwet’in Peoples would not tolerate mining or clear-cut forestry practices on theirtraditional lands was released at a press conference in Vancouver.As a result of the Declaration the Xeni Gwet’in Peoples became involved with theGovernment of British Columbia in a review of the Deferred Planning Area aroundChilco Lake (further development was frozen in this area pending additional studies). A60 person Chilco Study Committee was formed in 1993/94. The Xeni Gwet’in were oneof three co-chairs (the Ministry of Parks and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs were theother co-chairs). The Committee, which was made up of all stakeholders in the region,recommended the establishment of a Provincial Park and a separate TsilqotinManagement Zone (TZM)The recommendations of the Chilco Study became the basis for the development of aMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Xeni Gwet’in and BC Parks. TheMOU set out in detail what can and cannot occur in the area, what the roles andAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 47. 40responsibilities of the respective stakeholders are, and established a monthly stakeholdermeeting process. The MOU, which was supported by the stakeholder group, was signedin a ceremony in Victoria.The scope of the agreement, which initially focused primarily on park managementissues, has been recently expanded to include issues on lands adjacent to the park. Amanagement group comprised of Xeni Gwet’in and BC Parks has been created toconsider applications and permits for a variety of land use applications and other mattersthat routinely come up.Motivation of the Partners and StakeholdersThe Xeni Gwet’in Peoples wanted to ensure that they had an active role in themanagement of their traditional lands and that clear cutting and mining operations did notdecimate the lands. They also wanted to ensure that they would have access to the landsfor 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 consistentwith the mandate of BC Parks and to ensure that traditional land use practices of the FirstNations Peoples were allowed to continue. As well, they wanted to establish a processthat allowed input from other stakeholders in the region.4 The park that was established is located about 220 kilometers west of Williams LakeAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 48. 41Lessons 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); andAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 49. 42 • 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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 50. 433.2.10 West Chilcotin Forest ProductsParties 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 CollaborationCarrier Lumber of Prince George, B.C. had operated a sawmill in the community ofAnahim Lake for a number of years. In 1993 they were forced to close their mill whenthey lost their Timber Supply License (TSL) due to a controversial decision by theGovernment of the day.The loss of the Carrier mill was potentially devastating. While the region had asmattering of tourism outfitters and ranchers, the mill and associated logging operationswas the economic mainstay of Anahim Lake. The loss of the TSL was a significant blowto Carrier Lumber as it literally reduced the value of their sawmill facility in AnahimLake to zero. It was also a huge loss to the residents of Anahim Lake as the mill, itsassociated logging operations and spin off businesses was the economic lifeblood of thecommunity.The leadership of one individual in the community was responsible for the formation of atripartite partnership involving Carrier Lumber, the Ulkatcho First Nation and a group of50 investors from the community to form West Chilcotin Lumber. This partnership wasuniquely positioned to resuscitate the economy. Carrier Lumber had the facility andinfrastructure. The involvement of the fifty local investors provided both Carrier and theAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 51. 44Government with a concrete demonstration of local commitment and support for theUlkatcho First Nation’s (the third partner) application for a TSL.West Chilcotin commenced operations in 1996 and manufactures studs (2in X 4in X 8ftlumber), which they sell all over the world.Motivation of the Partners and StakeholdersAll parties to the agreement were highly motivated. The Ulkatcho First Nation had beenpursuing a TSL for years, but the Government had always declined, telling them to ‘gofind a partner’. The First Nation has always viewed a TSL as a means for them toachieve a significant share of the work in the forest sector and to establish a base for theireconomy.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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 52. 45Bridge 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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 53. 464 Lessons LearnedThe preceding ten case studies supply data and information that can provide insights intocharacteristics of successful partnerships and critical issues that influence the success ofpartnerships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal interests. These lessons learnedmay help existing and future partnerships to enhance their potential for success. Thefollowing analysis, drawn from the preceding case studies, discusses and presents thelessons learned in three key areas: the motivation of partners and stakeholders; crucialsuccess factors, and conflict management strategies. This analysis is followed by adiscussion on lessons learned from failed partnerships and an overview of two innovativeprojects aimed at encouraging and understanding Aboriginal/non-Aboriginalpartnerships.4.1 Motivation of Partners and StakeholdersThe partners in the above cases consistently cited motivational factors that are rooted inself-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 needto 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 nothingfundamentally wrong with this. In fact, we would argue that a partnership is notsustainable 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 isnot to suggest that these are the only motivations that can result in successfulpartnerships, rather these are simply the motivations that spurred the creation of theseAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 54. 47partnerships. Nonetheless, the presence of one or more of these motivators can signal anopportunity 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 other5 As all of the motivations are basically linked through the self-interest of the parties, the division into five differenttypes of motivation may be seen as arbitrary. However, we believe that it is useful in that it sets out a more systematicprocess against which the motivation for establishing new partnerships can be reviewed.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 55. 48 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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 56. 494.2 Critical Success FactorsA review of the partnership examples, coupled with the authors’ own experiences inAboriginal/non-Aboriginal partnerships has identified 9 critical success factors thatcontribute to the potential for the partnership to be successful. They are listed below inAlphabetical 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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 57. 505. 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 ManagementWhile it could be considered as a subset of Governance, we feel that ConflictManagement is such a critical success factor that it needs to be addressed separately. It isAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 58. 51relevant to almost every other success factor. Many partnerships have addressed theother critical issues and still failed, because conflicts amongst the partners andstakeholders prevented them from achieving their potential. Our research suggests fouractions 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 PartnershipsThe research conducted during the course of this study, together with the authors’extensive experience in Aboriginal Community Development, has revealed numerousAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 59. 52partnerships that have either failed or have not lived up to their potential because theyomitted one or more of these Critical Success Factors. There are numerous otherexamples of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities or corporations who have notmade an attempt to work together. The participants in these often high-profile examplesmay 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 thefolly of not adhering to the maxim, that “If one does not learn from the mistakes ofhistory, then one is doomed to repeat them.” Following then is an overview of someexamples associated with certain of the critical success factors. (Note: names andidentifying 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 levelsAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 60. 53 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 InitiativesThere have been several other initiatives launched to examine and support Aboriginal andnon-Aboriginal partnerships. While there have been valuable learnings from many ofthese, two seem of particular interest to this report and its objective of suggesting asystematic process for facilitating future partnerships. The following sub-sectionsAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 61. 54present them in a summary form. We encourage readers who wish more information onthese 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 aneffort to increase dialogue between representatives from First Nations governments andlocal governments. The event was successful and precipitated the creation of the“Regional” Community to Community Forum Program, which provided funding forindividual or regional groups of First Nations governments and local governments tomeet and initiate a dialogue on key issues of mutual interest6.”The proponents obtained funding to sponsor 32 regional forums from the Ministry ofAboriginal Affairs (8) and from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (24). Interestedcommunities. This funding, which was provided for up to 50% of the costs, was availablethrough a straightforward application process to Regional Districts and municipalitieswho could demonstrate that had a local First Nations government that shared theirinterest.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 ofthe most lasting benefits of the program will be that it served as the catalyst for the firstever discussions between the two local governments. In that sense it was groundbreaking.6 Union of British Columbia Municipalities, Regional Community to Community Forum Evaluation, Draft Report,August, 2001Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 62. 554.5.2 Knowledge Network SeriesIn 2001, the Knowledge Television Network in partnership with the Ministry ofCommunity Development, Co-operatives and Volunteers developed the four part series,The Power of the People: Building Stronger Communities. This series examined thesocial, economic and environmental pressures that affect towns and communitiesthroughout 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 discoveredfundamental factors that led to success in their journey toward economic development.Some journeys took longer than others but each identified success factors in achievingtheir objectives:” 1. People count 2. Long term visions, Short term actions 3. Attitudes make a difference 4. Resourcefulness 5. Broad Perspective 6. Practical and PragmaticThis 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-Aboriginalpartnership at Kamloops, also featured here in Section 3.2.87 www.knowtv.comAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 63. 565 From Individual to Community – The Case for Community Level Facilitated Partnership DevelopmentThe preceding sections have presented and discussed a range of partnerships betweenAboriginals and non-Aboriginals in British Columbia, reviewed some lessons learnedfrom failed partnerships and briefly touched on two other initiatives to understand andpromote partnerships. For the most part the partnerships are producing real benefits forthe partners and for the communities in which they are located, helping them to addresspressing economic and social concerns. However, the partnerships are all of a discrete orad-hoc nature – that is to say that none were initiated as part of a strategic initiative tolaunch Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal partnerships.All of the partnerships studied in this report, and in fact all of the partnerships that wereviewed in British Columbia, were launched at the initiative of one or more of thepartners and were motivated by a particular set of circumstances (see earlier discussionon motivation). None were part of an overt, community level partnership facilitationprocess. In fact, other than the UBCM initiative, which seems to be more of a fundingprogram than a comprehensive partnership facilitation process, we found no evidence ofany sort of facilitated community-level process to support the systematic identificationand development of Aboriginal / non-Aboriginal partnerships.The closest to a facilitated process was the experience in two recent joint-ventureseminars (January 2000), Fort St. John and Terrace, which focused on developingbusiness 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 afacilitated manner, and that real partnership opportunities do exist. The seminars, whichwere supported by the Northern Development Commission, brought indigenous and non-indigenous people (about 30 people in each seminar) together for two days to identifymutually beneficial opportunities and create strategies and action plans for developingAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 64. 57them. The seminars were successful, with participants rating them very highly, and anumber of real opportunities identified and development strategies created. However, allparticipants suggested that there should be follow-up and support to provide ongoingfacilitation and assistance to the partnership development and community bridge-buildingprocess. This is consistent with the information received from those interviewed duringthe current partnership review. There was a general perception that, whileAboriginal/non-Aboriginal partnerships represented a significant developmentopportunity (especially for rural and remote communities), little is currently being doneto systematically support and encourage partnership development.Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and communities, especially those in rural areas ofBC, are facing unprecedented challenges as they strive to secure a sustainable future forthemselves and their children. Both communities face social and economic challengesthat require new approaches and innovative solutions. The 1999 Provincial HealthOfficers annual report indicates that while many Aboriginal communities have improvedtheir quality of life, in comparison to the non-Aboriginal population Aboriginal peopleare 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 difficultchallenges in trying to secure a stronger social and economic future including recoveryfrom economic downturn in the resource sector.Partnerships have the potential to make a fundamental positive difference in their socialand economic future. Improving Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relations can help BCcommunities overcome impediments to social and economic progress. Building on bestpractices of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal partnerships can provide insight on howcommunities can work together to address common concerns to build a healthysustainable future. Cooperation and collaboration between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities can mobilize and focus local and regional resources to affectpositive change for all residents. "Partnerships are indicators of a willingness betweenAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 65. 58Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people to work together to address issues of commonconcern and build sustainable communities." 8The challenge is to build on the experiences of current partnerships and researchinitiatives and develop the tools and methodologies that can support a replicablepartnership development process. The experiences of the partnerships that are reviewedin this report, along with other community and Aboriginal development research9 provideimportant information that can be used to inform and support individual partnerships andfacilitated partnership development processes.The following Section suggests an action plan for developing a facilitated process tosupport the type of community-wide bridge building and collaboration that we believewill spawn the creation of numerous partnerships and result in more sustainable futuresfor 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. SeeBibliography (UBCM’s Community to Community Joint Forum, Knowledge Network Series, Strengthening AboriginalParticipation in the Economy, etc.)Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 66. 596 Building on the Results: Recommendations for Developing a Community Partnership InitiativeThis section will seek to apply the results of the above analysis to the objective ofdeveloping a Pilot Community Bridge Building and Partnership Development Initiative.The recommended process for the Pilot will include facilitated partnership identificationand development processes and a facilitated community bridge building initiative. It isour expectation that, after fine-tuning the process in pilot communities it could bedeveloped as a stand-alone toolkit that communities could use to assist them to takecontrol of their social and economic future.6.1 Model Partnership and Bridge Building ProcessThe following paragraphs set out in general terms a framework for a community widePartnership Development and Bridge Building Process. It is the expectation of theauthors that this framework could serve as the basis for the development of a communityspecific process for two or more pilot communities. (The experience of the pilotcommunities will likely provide information that will enable further refinement of theframework prior to rolling out the initiative on a wider basis.)The process would involve the concurrent launch of an economic and social bridgebuilding pilot project designed to address both the social and economic aspects ofcommunity bridge building. Our intention is to use this initial project to betterunderstand how this process can be applied to support community development in BritishColumbia and to develop the tools and support systems that would enable the process tobe replicated in other communities.We envisage a process that would develop and support two concurrent tracks, onefocusing on identifying and developing partnership opportunities and the secondaddressing the challenge of community and social bridge building between AboriginalAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 67. 60and non-Aboriginal communities. The two tracks, although separate, would inter-relateand provide support to each other.The economic bridge building process will seek to identify economic opportunities thatcould be developed through collaboration across racial and ethnic boundaries (e.g.Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal joint ventures and other partnerships similar to the onesexplored 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 facilitateddialogue process, working with targeted individuals to understand and develop strategiesfor addressing long-standing disputes/divisions in the community. The application of thismodel was examined by Gifty Serbeh-Dunn, who has recently completed an initial phaseof a sustained dialogue process in the Cowichan Valley as part of her thesis requirementsfor a Master of Arts in Conflict Analysis and Management (Royal Roads University –2000).Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 68. 61Our model for Sustained Dialogue is based on Saunder’s definition and model that hedescribes in A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial andEthnic 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 Community Transformation through Partnership and Bridge Building Proces Community Status (Current) Community Status (Future) Bridge Building Process Declining economy Stabilized/growing economy Social problems Social problems being addressed Cross-cultural tension Cross-cultural tension easing Partnership Development Missed economic opportunities Economic opportunities capturedThe two streams will interact in both structured and unstructured ways as the participantsbecome more engaged in the process of bridge building and community healing anddevelopment. Each process could be utilized as a communication vehicle to continuouslyreach out to additional elements and stakeholders in the community to both inform themon the process and motivate them to become involved in the bridge building exercise.The following sub-section sets forth strategy and recommendations that the consultantsfeel will enable the launch of 1-2 pilot initiatives to test and refine this model prior to thedevelopment of a stand-alone toolkit and province wide rollout process.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 69. 626.2 Selecting Pilot Project CommunitiesWhile we believe that this model can eventually be adapted for application in a broadrange of settings, we recommend that any communities selected as pilot project sites meetseven 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;Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 70. 63 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 intwo communities initially. The following sub-section sets out the suggested process forlaunching the pilot projects.6.3 Next Steps - Launching a Pilot ProjectThe following eight steps set out our suggested process and budget for launching a bridgebuilding 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.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 71. 643. 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;Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 72. 656. 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; and8. Begin implementing rollout strategyAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 73. 66Suggested Year One ActivitiesTable 6-2 below sets out a range of suggested Year 1 activities and financial sources (theexact scope and schedule of activities should be determined during the planning phase[Step 3 above])Exhibit 6-2 Suggested Year 1 Activities and Financial SourcesActivity Potential Financial Sources(The following are not necessarily presented in the • Ministry of Community, Aboriginalorder in which we would expect them to be and Womens Servicesimplemented) • Indian and Northern Affairs Canada1. Identify partnership opportunities and prioritize; • Aboriginal Business Canada2. Identify major interests in community and begin • Western Diversification discussions to establish a Sustained Dialogue process; • Community Stakeholders3. Launch communication plan (which may include a • Local Industry monthly newsletter and/or other appropriate communication materials; • Foundations (our research has4. Host a public information meeting or meetings to discovered a Foundation that may be advise the stakeholders of the process and expected interested in financing part of the outcomes; Sustained Dialogue process)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; and12. Revise program and continue as appropriate.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 74. 67 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 CommunitiesCriteria Port Hardy UclueletEconomic Downturn √ The closure of the local fish processing √ The closure of the local fish processing plant and a nearby mine as well as the plant and major downsizing in the contraction of the forest sector has forest sector has left the community decimated the economy. 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 √ The 2 local First Nations and the town Port Hardy either have or have access to of Ucluelet either have or have access sufficient financial resources to contribute to sufficient financial resources to to the process contribute to the processHistory of √ The Gwa sala First Nation has an agreement √ The First Nations participate with theCollaboration with the District of Port Hardy for sewer town, the Regional District and several and water services that has worked well for Government departments on the both parties. Central Region Board as part of the √ The ‘two sides’ get along well on numerous Interim Measures Agreement. issues √ They work together on the Regional √ The three local First Nations are one of the Aquatics Management process. largest employers in the region and are √ The Toquaht First Nation and the town already a mainstay of the local economy have had meetings regarding expanding the collaboration around their shared harbor.Aboriginal and non- √ The population of the three local First √ The population of the local FirstAboriginal community Nations is quite large, comprising Nations is quite small; however, both approximately 1/3 of the local population. they and the town recognize their relative importance in the region.Commitment √ This cannot be determined until reviewing √ This cannot be determined until the concept with the primary stakeholders reviewing the concept with the primary and they are in a position to make a decision stakeholders and they are in a position on their level of commitment/interest to make a decision on their level of commitment/interestLeadership √ The Mayor of Port Hardy is an active √ The Mayor of Ucluelet is a vocal community developer. He a former advocate of Economic Development. Chairman and current Board Member of the √ The Chief of the very small Ucluelet Coastal Community Network and has an First Nation (pop 12), Bert Mack is a engaging personality and high profile. high profile and successful businessperson and a strong leaderEconomic √ The fish farming industry is growing √ Tourism has huge potential. Ucluelet Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
  • 75. 68Criteria Port Hardy UclueletOpportunities rapidly in this region and now employs over has lagged well behind the Tofino area 400 employees. in this regard. √ There appear to be significant undeveloped √ Joint fisheries management has tourism opportunities. potential. √ There may be opportunities for local value added manufacturing. Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
  • 76. 697 ConclusionBased on our review of the ten partnerships and our analysis of other issues and factorswe conclude that Aboriginal / non-Aboriginal partnerships offer a major economicopportunity to numerous BC communities. There are opportunities to extend and expandthe value of individual partnerships through a facilitated partnership development andcommunity bridge building initiative. The preceding section sets forth a suggested planfor developing such an initiative. We recommend that the Government of BritishColumbia and other stakeholders in the development of the province’s Aboriginal andnon-Aboriginal communities give serious consideration to implementing such a plan.Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 77. Attachments Page 11. List of Abbreviations and AcronymsBC British ColumbiaCODA Central Okanagan Regional DistrictDND Department of National DefenseEDC Economic Development CorporationFN First NationFRBC Forest Renewal British ColumbiaGMDC Greater Massett Development CorporationINAC Indian and Northern Affairs CanadaLSIB Little Shuswap Indian BandMB MacMillan BloedelMOE Ministry of EnvironmentMOF Ministry of ForestsMOU Memorandum of UnderstandingPMQ Personnel Married QuartersRDEK Regional District of East KootenayTSL Timber Supply LicenseTZM Tsilqotín Management ZoneUBCM Union of British Columbia MunicipalitiesWDA Wayne Dunn and AssociatesAboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks forSustainable Community Development
  • 78. Attachments Page 2 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 OrganizationAllan Pineo Band Manager Adams Lake First NationClaire Marshall Aboriginal Relations BC HydroSteve Mazur District Manager BC Parks, Caribou District,Tarel S. Quandt BC Persons with AIDS SocietyCameron Beck Community Planner Carrier Chilcotin Tribal Council,Bill Cordoban Owner Carrier Lumber,Gerry Policy Analyst Carrier Sekanni Family ServicesStelsmaschukWayne d’Easum Chief Administrative Central Okanagan Regional District, OfficerMathew Ney Consultant Chapman Business Consulting (Lake View Meadows)Janice Rose Administrator Chemainus Community CollegeRobin True First Nations Liaison College of the RockiesRuss Helberg Mayor Community of Port Hardy,Judy Birch Manager, Aboriginal Dept. of Environment, Government of BC RelationsDoug Krogel Land Use Planning and Dept. of Environment, Government of BC First Nation LiaisonRon Creber Manager, Aboriginal Dept. of Environment, Government of BC Relations Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
  • 79. Attachments Page 3 Name Title OrganizationFrankie Craig Senior Policy Advisor Dept. of Indian and Northern AffairsWanda Stachura Social Development Dept. of Indian and Northern Affairs Operational SpecialistRichard Krentz Partner Hiwus Feast House on Grouse MountainDarlene Luke Executive Assistant Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tibal CouncilChief Sophie Chief, Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tibal CouncilPierreAlex Wolf Lawyer/Manager Legal Services SocietyRandall Martin Band Manager Little Shuswap Indian BandBill Lee Metis Commissioner Metis Commission for Children and FamiliesRob Enfield Forester Ministry of Forests,Tina Donald Councilor North Thompson First Nation,Kevin Brown GM Old Masset Development Corporation,Clarence Louie Chief Osoyoos First NationJeannine Cook People’s Law SchoolLee-Anne Crane Administrator Regional District of East Kootenay,Gerry Sanders Owner Sanders ConstructionDave Monture XD Shuswap Nation Tribal Council,Mike Anderson None Skeetchestn First Nation,James Atebe Community Planner Sto Lo Nation,Georg Schurian President Sun Rivers DevelopmentJennifer 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 MunicipalitiesBernadette Spence Board Member Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services AgencyFrieda Enns Executive Director Vancouver Police & Native Liason SocietyClinton Mutch EDO Village of Masset, Economic Development Commission,Diane St. Jacques Mayor Village of Ucluelet,Steven James Manager West Chilcotin Forest Products Ltd., Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
  • 80. Attachments Page 4 Reports and Documents Title Author Published by DateCameco Aboriginal Relations Wayne Cameco Corporation November Dunn 1998Community to Community Joint First Nations Summit and March 2001Forum: A Dialogue Between First Union of British ColumbiaNations and Local Governments in MunicipalitiesBritish Columbia (Final ConferenceReport)Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal Fraser Basin Council Spring 2000PartnershipsThe Changing Resource Development Wayne Government of British January 2001Paradigm: Maximizing Sustainable Dunn Columbia, Ministry ofLocal Benefits from Resource Community Development,Development Cooperatives and VolunteersA Call to Action: Our Roots Go Metis National Council April 1998Deep, Our Hopes Stand Tall and Royal Bank of Canada(Delegates Kit)Guide to Aboriginal Organizations Province of British June 12, 2000and Services Columbia, Ministry of Aboriginal AffairsHealing Wounds: Sustained Dialogue Gifty Royal Roads University Septemberin the Cowichan Valley. The Role of Serbeh- (Master’s Thesis) 2000Identify in Cross Cultural Conflict DunnDeveloping Partnerships: 9th Annual Sub-committee of the December 1998Report on Aboriginal Participation in IntergovernmentalMining Working Group on the Mineral IndustryCase Studies on Aboriginal Joint Wayne Wayne Dunn & Associates SeptemberVentures: Northern Resource Dunn Ltd. 1999Trucking Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
  • 81. Attachments Page 5 Title Author Published by DateStrengthening Aboriginal Federal- May 2001Participation in the Economy: Report Provincial/Territorialof the Working Group on Aboriginal Ministers Responsible forParticipation in the Economy to the Aboriginal Affairs andFederal-Provincial/Territorial National AboriginalMinisters Responsible for Aboriginal LeadersAffairs and National AboriginalLeadersReview: News from the National National Round Table on Fall 2000Round Table on Environment and the the Environment and theEconomy EconomyRegional Community to Community Union of British Columbia August 2001Forum Evaluation, Draft Report, Municipalities, 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 (BC Hydro Aboriginal Relations) http://www.bchydro.bc.ca/ard/principles.html (Centre for Community Enterprise) www.cedworks.com (Coastal Community Network) http://www.coastalcommunity.bc.ca (Community Economic Development Centre – Simon Fraser University) http://www.sfu.ca/cedc/ (First Nations Education Steering Committee) www.fnesc.bc.ca (Fraser Basin Councils Special Report on Partnerships: ) http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/documents/Spr2000.pdf (Knowledge Network) www.knowtv.com (Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs) http://www.aaf.gov.bc.ca/news- releases/2000/clayimea.stm (Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs) http://www.aaf.gov.bc.ca/news-releases/2000/claynr.stm (Union of BC Municipalities) http://www.civicnet.gov.bc.ca/ubcm/ Aboriginal Partnerships – Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development