Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal        Partnerships:Building Blocks for Sustainable   Community Development            Submi...
iAcknowledgementsThe consulting team of Wayne Dunn & Associates Ltd. wish to acknowledge the sincereco-operation and suppo...
iiTable of Contents1     Introduction and Background ........................................................................
iiiExecutive SummaryIn British Columbia, there is an ever-increasing need for First Nations to partner withprivate industr...
iv        Roles and responsibilities within the partnership should be clearly outlined, with a        strong commitment to...
vprovision of on-going support and consultation will be critical to ensure the developmentof the partnerships.The social/c...
vipartnerships, and in the identification and fostering of potential collaborations in thefuture.   The suggested plan pre...
11 Introduction and BackgroundThe Community Transition Branch of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal andWomen’s Services...
2Cooperation and collaboration between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities canmobilize and focus local and regional ...
3Section 6 outlines what such a process might look like and then goes on to list criteriathat would help to select potenti...
42 Methodology and Approach2.1 ApproachIn order to achieve the objectives of the assignment within the time and budgetcons...
5was agreed that the Consultants should attempt to develop 6-10 detailed case studies,with at least one from each sector. ...
6    analysis of each partnership and allow the project team and the client to identify which    partnerships warranted fu...
7The draft plan for a Community Bridge Building Initiative is presented in Section 6.2.2 Limitations of ResearchThe consul...
8        in the data and information.        Phase II research methodology utilized a data        checking and verificatio...
9Despite the limitations noted above, the Consultants are confident that the research andanalysis has provided findings th...
103 Case Studies and Individual Partnership Analysis3.1 Summary of Partnership Case StudiesThe following list summarizes t...
113.2 Individual Case StudiesThe following ten sub-sections discuss the ten case studies referred to earlier. Specificcont...
12INAC’s policy governing the                                                           Mission Statementfinancing of Chil...
13        and there is a difficulty in attracting staff to move from the more populated areas        like the lower mainla...
143.2.2 Gallagher Canyon AgreementParties to the Agreement:    •     Westbank First Nation, Kelowna, BC    •     Central O...
15The agreement addresses the allocation of various developmental costs, the number ofhomes, types of buildings allowed an...
16Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors    •   All parties were motivated to develop a legal agreement that could p...
173.2.3 Greater Massett Development CorporationParties to the Agreement:    •   Old Masset First Nation    •   Village of ...
18The stakeholders decided that the economic impact of the base closure could be mitigatedsomewhat with the formation of a...
19GMDC holds monthly Board of Director meetings, and two large meetings per year thatare open to the general public; an An...
20partnership has actually worsened relationships between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal elements of the community.Moti...
21    •   Solid financial plans, especially on the revenue side, are extremely important.        Failure to adequately dev...
223.2.4 Iisaak Forest ResourcesParties to the Agreement:    •   Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. (formerly MacMillan Bloedel Ltd) ...
23Before the escalation of conflict, Weyerhaeuser (MacMillan Bloedel (MB)) the operatorthroughout the 1990s was purchased ...
24Iisaak is committed to an eco-forestry approach, logging in second growth areas,supplying wood to local value-added wood...
25    •   First Nations can have a strong influence on disputes between industry and        environmentalists;    •   Loca...
263.2.5 Lakeview MeadowsParties to the Agreement:    •   Shuswap First Nation, Cranbrook, BC    •   Regional District of E...
27They leveraged the prepayment and commitment to secure the capital to develop thesystem. Today the First Nation supplies...
28    •   Both partners had clear goals and understood what they could do best to make the        partnership work;    •  ...
293.2.6 Monthly Licensee Meetings – North ThompsonParties to the Agreement (Process):The participants are:    •   North Th...
30A major benefit of the process is that it provides an ongoing opportunity for dialogue andinteraction amongst the stakeh...
31    •   To maximize the employment, business and other benefits accruing to First        Nation’s people from the harves...
323.2.7 Skwlax/Sanders Construction Ltd.Parties to the Agreement:    •   Little Shuswap Indian Bank, Chase BC    •   Sande...
33The company had some initial challenges as it sought to balance First Nation member’sdesire to maximize employment with ...
34    •   In order to successfully execute construction projects it is important to have        access to the appropriate ...
35        they will address it head-on and get it resolved before it develops into something        that could threaten th...
363.2.8 Sun Rivers Resort CommunityParties to the Agreement:    •    The Sun Rivers Corporation, Kamloops BC    •    Kamlo...
37Motivation of the Partners and StakeholdersSun Rivers was motivated by a desire to profitably develop a unique housing a...
38    •   Once the project had begun, the stakeholders recognized their common interest        and worked in a spirit of c...
393.2.9 Tsilqot’in People of Xeni and BC Parks (Ts’yl-os Provincial Park)Parties to the Agreement:    •   The Xeni Gwet’in...
40responsibilities of the respective stakeholders are, and established a monthly stakeholdermeeting process. The MOU, whic...
41Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors    •   The leadership demonstrated by the Xeni Gwet’in Peoples to identify ...
42    •   The First Nation has a regular and consistent communication process to ensure        that their membership is we...
433.2.10          West Chilcotin Forest ProductsParties to the Agreement    •   Ulkatcho First Nation, Anahim Lake, B.C.  ...
44Government with a concrete demonstration of local commitment and support for theUlkatcho First Nation’s (the third partn...
45Bridge Building and Conflict Management Strategies    •   Be prepared to deal with the tough issues at the negotiation t...
464 Lessons LearnedThe preceding ten case studies supply data and information that can provide insights intocharacteristic...
47partnerships. Nonetheless, the presence of one or more of these motivators can signal anopportunity to develop a partner...
48    inputs. For instance, in the Gallagher Canyon Development none of the parties,    working independently, could have ...
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Partnerships: Building Blocks for Sustainable Community Development
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

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

1,282 views

Published 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 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.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,282
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
44
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

×