The term comes from a famous experiment in the 1 s that examined thefactors affecting worker productivity in the Hawthorne plant. Murphy Finally, although this study is a microstudy in a particular ecological and cultural region, somegeneralizations have been made to similar regions in Canada where co-management has been appliedor is being contemplated. Therefore, the results of this study have been generalized to theoreticalpropositions on co-management of natural resources between governments and local communitiesacross Canada.
A very important limitation in this study, however, is that bothcases in this study have been operational for less than five years, a period that may not be sufficientto evaluate fully a policy initiative. In particular, the full impact of socio-economic and biophysicalconcerns may not yet be realized. Such responsibilities involved: a the design and administration ofthe public participation process pertaining to treaty negotiations between the Teme-AugamaAnishnabai First Nation and Ontario; and b the preparation of interim and contingency timbermanagement plans.
In the same vein, while the Wendaban Stewardship Authority has completed itsmanagement plan, the Comprehensive Planning Council is still in the process of doing so. Thisfurther limits comparative analysis between the two cases. Despite these limitations, multiple sources of data were used.
This allowed the author tocross-check and corroborate the data with different sources and account for past events. The semi-formalstructure of interviews was intended to put subjects at ease. Probing questions were also developedand administered to subjects during field interviews in order to clarify meanings and avoidmisinterpretations of observed behaviour by the investigator.
Despite the short time involved during which the two cases have been operational, thisresearch focuses on decision-making structures and processes as well as social relationships amongactors in co-management rather than on socio-economic and biophysical impacts. The former twoattributes can easily be evaluated within a five-year time frame.
For all the above reasons, thisresearch is still worthwhile since it focuses mainly on institutional designs in co-management and theirimpact on social relationships and conflict resolution.
- The Last Three?
- See a Problem??
- Navigation menu!
- A Plucky Girl.
- The Plantagenets.
- temagami in books | uxixakufaxeb.tk.
These are key components currently not well-understood in co-management. The four mainresearch questions highlighted earlier, guided data collection for this study. Multiple sources wereused. Primary data were compiled on the basis of information generated through semi-structuredinterviews and through transient observation.
The semi- structured interviews were both open-endedin nature to encourage a conversational tone and focused following a checklist of key questionssee Appendix 1. Transient observation refers to a process where the observer or researcher observeswithout disguise, is clearly an outsider, and, is faced with tight time constraints to actively participatein the life of the program and observe day-to-day activities Murphy Secondary data sources included minutes, administrative documents, letters, and memorandaof both organizations, government reports and news briefs, as well as newsclippings.
Fivecategories of interviews were administered Appendix 1. Table 1 shows the number of respondentsby interview category and total number of questions. Although the majority of interview questionslisted in Appendix 1 were prepared prior to fieldwork, several questions were added to the interviewschedules while in the field as follow-up questions or probes. This was done to clarifj and elaborateon some key issues raised by the respondents. Although the total number of interview questionsabove is shown as , the actual total of individual interview questions was The total of simply showsthat several individual questions were repeated across the five respondent categories see Appendix 1.
These techniques have been recommended by Miles andHuberman , as effective in qualitative data analysis. However, the general analyticstrategy has been guided by the main research questions that led to this study. In turn, the mainresearch questions led to formulation of interview questions that guided data collection. From theresponses to the interview questions, it was possible to draw main categories into which data responses were placed. This approach has been suggested as a preferred strategy by Yin The approach makes it possible to discriminate among the data and select those data that directlyaddress the main research questions and place them into the main categories emerging from thequestions of the study and the data themselves.
Once the data were classified, it was possible to examine for regularities, variations, andsingularities outliers within the data. It became apparent prior to data analysis that the interviewquestions and their responses were too numerous for meaningful analysis. Therefore, out of thetotal number of 72 interview questions, only data pertaining to 35 questions were analyzed in thisstudy Table 2.
The 35 questions were selected on the basis that they addressed directly the mainresearch questions of this study. How has co-management affected 7 6 4 17the distributions of decision-making authority at local levels? How has co-management changed 11 11 7 29the substance or types of resourcemanagement decisions at locallevels? Sub-totals 18 17 11 How has co-management affected 9 2 3 14mutual understanding andcooperation among key actors andlocal resource users?
How co-management affected local 8 2 2 12resource-use conflicts? Sub-totals 17 4 5 26Totals 35 21 16 72These interview questions were administered for the purpose of gaining an in-depth understanding of each caseunder study. Responses to these questions were annotated and categorized for reference in theoverall explanation building on each case study. In other words, a full comprehension of the datawas felt necessary and has been preserved throughout the study. Actual data pertaining to mainresearch questions 1 and 2 are displayed in Appendix 2.
Data pertaining to main researchquestions 3 and 4 are displayed in Appendix 3. For the purposes of evaluation, research questions 1 and 2 were analyzed together sincethey both pertain to decision-making i. Similarly, research questions 3 and 4 were analyzed together as they are bothconcerned with social relationships i. The official Township of Temagami has a population of 1, and is made upofthree geographically separated residential areas or townsites6.
These townsites are known as thevillage, Temagami North, and the Mime townsite. The village is the oldest residential area of thetown and is also the commercial and workplace centre of the town. The Milne townsite is a small residential area approximately 3. The Milne townsite is located about 1. Also included within the Township boundaries are parts of the hub ofLakeTemagami which include the northeast arm of the lake and Temagami Island Hodgins andBenidickson This is the road used by the residents ofBear Island Reserve, the permanent lake residents who live on the lake all year round and thesummer cottagers to access the lake and the mainland throughout the year.
However, these industries collapsed with the closure of boththe William Mime and Sons Lumber Company and Sherman iron mine in In terms of its natural setting, the town ofTemagami is located within a forested region. LawrenceForest Regions Rowe Therefore, the Temagami forests take their mixed structure, mostlycomposed of white pine, red pine, jack pine, black spruce, white spruce, birch, poplar, maple, andoak, from both the Boreal and Great Lakes - St.
Lawrence forests. Lawrence Forest Region. Most ofthe agricultural activity in the area is confined to this clay beltwhich covers the communities of Cobalt, Haileybury, and New Liskeard also known as the Tn-townarea Figure 6. The Temagami Planning Area specifically refers to a land management area of the Ministry ofNaturalResources ofwhich the town and surrounding region of Temagami is a part. Bear Island is an IndianReserve of hectares with a population of people.
The history and nature of this conflict is discussed later. Other important neighbouring communities are the islands on Lake Temagami. The summercottagers and permanent lake residents i. In addition, there are five summer camps on the lake, three ofwhich areAmerican and two Canadian. The number of permanent residents who live on the lake all year longis small.
There are currently 12 families that live on the lake all year. The association is largely a ratepayer organizationfor permanent residents Shute Status Indians are those registered with the Department of Indian Affairs andlive on Reserve; non-status are those who are not registered and live off Reserve. There are 54 island lake communities with a total of cottages on Lake Temagami Temagami News Association Lake communities are islands on Lake Temagami wherecottage residences are located9.
Approximately half of all summer cottagers are American citizens. Ofthe Canadian cottagers the majority are from southern Ontario. Since , the cottagers on thelake formed the Temagami Lakes Association TLA through which their needs and concerns havebeen represented and voiced within the area Sinclair Before , the TLA served largely as a ratepayer organization.
Subsequently, concerns bysummer residents about the impact of the mining and forestry industries, and fears about futuresubdivision projects and further road building, created a sense of alarm among them Hodgins andBenidickson 1. The residents perceived the above activities to have severe environmentalconsequences that would affect them. This led in to the election of a new board of directorsCottages are restricted to the islands on Lake Temagami. Cottage building has not been allowed onthe mainland because of the danger of fire to the forest. The TLA ceased primarily to be a ratepayerorganization; it became sophisticated, and it was well connected to all three political parties in Ontario Hodgins The TLA has since become a major political force on land use discussions inthe area.
Of significance to the Temagami area is the provincial park system. These parks haveattracted tourists from all over the world particularly in the summer season. Wilderness parks are substantial areas where the forces of nature are permitted tofUnction freely and where visitors travel by non-mechanized means and experience expansive solitude,challenge, and personal integration with nature [MNR n. The park was designated a new status as a Wilderness Park in covering an area of 72, hectares.
This designation sparked controversy between the MNR andlocal communities as it curtailed pre-existing uses including trapping, hunting, mining, and alsorestricted mechanized access. The nature of this conflict is discussed later. Of notable importance in Table 3 are the high rates of populationdecline since and current unemployment. Both the population decline and high unemploymentrates could be attributed to the closure of the Sherman Mine and the William Milne and Sons LumberCompany in Both companies were the major employers in the area prior to their closure.
Alsonotable in Table 3 is the unemployment rate at Bear Island Reserve which is higher than in any of thecommunities. In particular, there have been no directtimber allocations granted by the IvINR to Bear Island despite the existence of a portable mill there. Table 4 also shows the general lack of both medical and recreational facilities in the area. Thecommunities of Latchford and Bear Island have fewer community services than the rest of thecommunities in Table 4 due to a general lack of investment or economic opportunities in bothcommunities.
Latchford Area Socio-economic Database, However, in the lasttwo decades, no natural resource issue has been more publicly controversial or troublesome togovernments in Ontario whatever their political stripe than the land-use conflict in the Temagami area. The issue is multi-dimensional. One facet, the dispute between multi-stakeholders and Ontario overresource management policies and approaches of the MNR in the region has been at the centre of thecontroversy.
Northwatch is a coalition of environmental citizen groups in northeasternOntario. Its head office is located in North Bay, 90 km south of Temagami. Earthroots, formerly the Temagami Wilderness Society, is also based in Toronto. The extensionwas intended by the MNR to provide the local timber industry access to the largest contiguous standof old-growth red and white pine in the area. The proposal drew strong opposition from pro-development groups such as logging and mining, andin the end, the M]N.
TR chose not to implement the proposal Hodgins and Benidickson All theenvironmental groups above are opposed to any development activities, particularly logging, mining,and road constructions that threaten the environmental and wilderness qualities of the Temagami area.
The multiple-use advocates, on the other hand, believe the area should continue to be usedfor economic benefit. Among such groups are Northcare, the logging and mining industries, the areaChambers of Commerce, labour unions, and local municipal governments. Northcare, which was largely funded by resource industries in the area, saw itself as anumbrella organization formed to represent industry, labour unions, hunters and anglers, trappers,tourist operators, Chambers of Commerce and local municipalities Gardner Currently,these pro-development groups draw their following mostly from within the local confines amongpeople whose livelihoods have in one way or another been affected by the restrictions imposed ondevelopment activities in the area due to the ongoing land title dispute between Ontario and theTeme-Augama Anishnabai TAA First Nation.
Earthroots - Latest News
One55geographic township is 9, hectares or 23, acres. The TAA people assert that they never cededtitle to their ancestral lands. Ontario, on the other hand, maintains that the land in question is Crowndomain Hodgins As discussed earlier, the Royal Proclamation of specified the methodof ceding aboriginal title to the Crown- through treaties signed between aboriginal peoples and theCrown.
Many aboriginal groups of Ojibway decent in northern Ontario signed the Robinson-HuronTreaty of Marie in , their leaders were not present tosanction the agreement. However, Ontario didnot grant a reserve to the TAA. As early as , the TAA convinced the federal government of thisfact, a detail of history demonstrated by the reality that the TAA found itself without a reservethroughout much of the century. The next section describes10 After Canadian Confederation in , aboriginal rights to fish, hunt, and trap on unoccupied Crownlands became restricted by some federal regulations such as the Federal Fish and Game Acts.
The aboriginal people claim title to the disputed lands thatare now Crown lands and demand a share in the benefits derived from use of those lands as well asan opportunity to be involved in land-use decision-making. Preservationists and pro-developmentadvocates want their interests protected and also included in land-use decision-making. Canada and Ontario agreed but despitesurveying of a 26, ha reserve in , the land was not transferred McNeil ; the timbermostly consisting of red and white pine, even then, being too valuable and in too short supply to behanded over to aboriginal people Flodgins The situation changed in when aboriginal people were allowed to trapwithin the Reserve upon purchase of an Ontario licence.
State enforcement of this requirementbecame problematic as aboriginal people continued hunting, fishing, and trapping without thenecessary licences Hodgins and Benidickson From to, the TAA continued attempts to secure the 26, ha reserve that was surveyed in The land cautionswhich were later secured the same year meant that the land title issue between Ontario and the TAAwas in question and therefore all major development works would be curtailed. All mining activitiesand land sales were halted and no new timber licences were to be granted until the land title issue wasresolved Hodgins and Benidickson This began a legal battle that would go on for the next23 years.
The TAA, on the other hand, asserted that since they did not sign the Robinson Huron Treaty, and the reserve surveyed in was not transferred to them, they didnot relinquish title to the land. While the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled in favour of Ontario inDecember , the conflict was far from being resolved. In January, the TAA appealed the SupremeCourt ruling but on February 27, the Ontario Court ofAppeal upheld the lower court decision,denying the TAA title to the land, maintaining that aboriginal title to the land was invalid underexisting laws and had been surrendered and extinguished.
At this pointthe TAA directed legal counsel to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada andreaffirm their intention to take the case to the international courts in their continuing struggle forjustice TAA The TAA, joined by recreationists, preservationists and other non-aboriginal peoplesympathetic to the TAA cause, blockaded the road developments for the next six months.
Ontarioresponded with injunctions, arrests and jailings Hodgins Arrested among the protestors wasBob Rae, who later became Premier ofOntario. Another blockade followed at the proposed GoulardLumber Road extension. Again the Province responded with injunctions and arrests, but also withtwo initiatives- the Temagami Advisory Council, now the Comprehensive Planning Council casestudy 1 and the offer to negotiate a settlement at last with the TAA. As part of that settlementOntario and the TAA set up a co-management experiment covering the four 4 townships at theheart of conflict in the Wakimika Triangle, now known as Wendaban Stewardship Authority casestudy 2.
Conflicts among these groups can best be described as one involving conflicting goals while thatbetween these various groups and Ontario could be characterized as involving the need forredistribution of decision-making authority from the centre to the local levels as well as conflictinggoals. This often pitted oneinterest group against the other as competition over resources escalated Benson As the timber supplies diminished over the years, coupled with poorregeneration of red and white pine, MNR was forced to open up new areas for logging in thehinterland; a situation that ignited controversy among various groups and between groups andOntario- particularly the IvINR.
The poor regeneration of red and white pine in the area has beenattributed primarily to the provincial fire suppression policy which continues today adopted at thebeginning of the 20th Century Day and Carter Fire plays a significant role in the ecology andregeneration ofboth species by opening up seed cones and suppressing competing vegetation.
Highgrading harvest practices which IvINR admitted had left the forest with trees of very poorquality, also contributed to poor regeneration ofboth red and white pine. The proposed new harvest allocations came with new proposals for road access as well. Butas highlighted earlier, these proposals were met with strong resistance from various groups. Environmentalists were against any further liquidation of the remaining old-growth forests in the area-pitting them against the timber industry and multiple-use advocates Skidmore ; recreationistsand cottage owners were opposed to any further opening up ofwilderness areas- pitting them againstthe timber industry Hodgins ; local governments in the area wanted more economic activityand thus were on the side of the timber industry- pitting them against environmentalists,recreationists, and cottage owners Skidmore ; trappers saw most of the area being lost throughthe new timber development proposals- pitting them against the timber industry Hodgins andBenidickson And naturally, the timber industry were against all the groups trying to curtailits operations.
In the end, Ontario bought the local mill Mime Lumber in and closed it at thesame time, in an attempt to cool off the controversy. During its operation, there was apprehension from environmental groups, recreationists andcommunity residents about the impact of drainage from the tailings basin into Temagami waters Hodgins and Benidickson The TAA land cautions of , which are still in effect, meant that no new mining development orexploration work would take place in the area.
This has always pitted the mining industry, which isjoined by pro-development groups, labour and local governments pushing for local economicdevelopment, against aboriginal people. Furthermore, the land cautions meant that no new cottagedevelopments would take place in the area until the land title issue was resolved. This has alwaysportrayed the aboriginal people as villains in the eyes of pro-development groups Hodgins andBenidickson This was followed by a ban on non-conforming uses taking place in the park, thereby curtailing allresource extraction activities in the area.
Two of thesecompanies were located in Elk Lake and one in Temagami.
BE THE FIRST TO KNOW
The mining industry and other traditional users such as sport hunters, trappers and fly-intourist operators, all ofwhom would be denied access into the park, were also opposed to the newdesignation. As a case in point, the representatives of twenty-seven towns and townships, organizedas the Temiskaming Municipal Association, opposed the Lady Evelyn Smoothwater Wilderness Parkproposal because they believed it would hinder the kind of tourism investment they envisioned for theregion Back All the above conflicts led to several policy initiatives by the Ontario government, aimed atresolving the various resource conflicts in the area.
As highlighted earlier, among those initiativeswere the Comprehensive Planning Council and the Wendaban Stewardship Authority; the two casesin this study. Both initiatives are described in detail in the next section. The Councilcomprised eight 8 appointees representing the following local interests: environment, municipalities,residents, tourism, and lumber companies.
The TAC operated for about three years before Ontario disbanded it inMay, due to inadequate local representation on it; a sentiment first voiced by the local publicsand later upheld by the government of Ontario. Theaboriginal group the TAA is represented by five members ofwhom one is a co-chair. This objective of integrated resource managementplanning has somewhat changed since the creation of the CPC.
In the same light, the WSA is said to represent an initial steptoward a treaty of co-existence between aboriginal and Euro-Canadian interests in the area CPP The area of jurisdiction of the WSA includes the four geographic townships of Acadia,Shelburne, Canton, and Delhi; altogether encompassing a total land area of 37, hectares Figure7.
According to the MOU MNR , the WSA has been granted decision-making authority toplan, decide, implement, enforce, regulate, and monitor all uses of and activities on the land withinits area ofjurisdiction. This mandateis somewhat narrower than what was earlier stated under the MOU. Since its inception, the WSAhas been seeking from Ontario to increase the breadth of its mandate to coincide with the MOU, andto secure this authority either by some form of ownership or legislative jurisdiction as for example67under the Forest Authorities Act such as the Algonquin Forest Authority in eastern Ontario or both.
However, the Minister gave no indication as to whenor how long it would take before the legislation would go through but advised the WSA, in thepresence of local MNR representatives, to act defacto as if they had the legislative jurisdiction.
AsofJune , that legislation has not been passed and the June elections in Ontario ousted the NewDemocratic Party and brought in the Conservative Party. The Ontario appointees are said by Ontario torepresent several local interests including labour, timber industry, local government, environment,recreation and tourism, and community development. The next chapter discusses the distributions of decision-making authority in resourcemanagement in the Temagami area. This is done in both historical under the MNR and current68 under the two co-management agencies contexts. As highlighted earlier, distribution of decision-making authority in this study isunderstood to involve both the distributions of decision-making and authority.
Distributions ofdecision-making refer to the levels of public participation in real decision-making and the influenceof each player on final decisions. Distributions of authority refer to real devolutions of decision-making power from the state to the local levels. The responses concerning decision-making distribution were unanimous all 65respondents that in the past, the IvINR made all the decisions Table 5.
Interview Question How was decision-making authority distributed in the past and how is it distributednow? This was possible because in its advisory capacity, the TAC also had a monitoring function. One of the key informants 5B who was also a former member of the TAC concluded:This [the lack of control over information] meant that we [the TAC members] were restrictedto work within the system; our activities were restricted to what the MNR wanted us to do.
In the long run, it was frustrating for us because we could not influence the land-use planningprocess in Temagami as we had hoped; our mandate was a sham! One public respondent 4P , also a former member of the TAC, commented,Surely, if they [the government and the MNR] wanted us to have input in land-use decisionsof this area, they should have realized that we needed to make informed judgements anddecisions before we could advise the Minister. We were like sitting ducks ready to be fed andshot any time. We were simply rubberstamping their [the MNR] decisions.
However, asking questions on information determined exclusively by the MNR without alsothe opportunity for the TAC to participate in the generation of that information and access to it wasno assurance that the TAC asked the right questions. These findings are consistent with those72ofRoss and Reed In her review of public participation processes in the TemagamiArea, Ross concluded that the TAC was a process essentially operating to reduceparticipation and obstruct scrutiny of the manner and substance ofMNR decisions.
The MNR officials depicted a paternalistic attitude by discouragingor closely managing the advice provided by the local community Reed This would imply sharing the responsibility of generating andcontrolling information as well. Conflicts that predated the TAC in the Temagami area were not resolved by the committee.
The TAC gave a false impression to73the local publics that its involvement in the decisions over the proposed road constructions by theMNR would halt the actions. The other reason, asnoted by three establishing agency respondents 3A, 3B, 3C , was that local representation on theTAC was inadequate- particularly with the absence of both the Teme-Augama Anishnabai FirstNation and the Temagami Lakes Association, both of whom were major players in the Temagamiconflict.
The functions are repeated and illustratedhere Testpublic reaction to policies; the policies being constructions of both the Red Squirrel andGoulard Road Extensions for the primary purpose of accessing the last stand of old-growthred and white pine in the area;2. Provide a forumfor expression ofpublic opinion; both Ontario and the MNR viewed theTAC as a voice for the local publics despite its lack of popularity locally;3. Force controversial issues into an objective arena; the controversial issues beingconstructions of both the Red Squirrel and Goulard Road Extensions;4.
Placate opposition by involving potential expert critics in the decision process; the criticsbeing representatives from environment, municipalities, tourism, and lumber companies whichexcluded major stakeholders such as mining and OFAH as well as the TAA; Provide a symbolic response to problems; the problems being the multi-faceted conflictsurrounding constructions ofthe road extensions and the symbolism stemming from creationby Ontario of an advisory body the TAC that lacked authority to influence MNR decisions;7. Give afalse or misleading impression ofaddressingproblems.
In the end, both roads were built but never used for their primarypurpose ofproviding access by the logging industry to harvest old-growth red and white pinein the area. As will be discussed later, the WSA resolved the controversy in throughconsensus decision-making and meaningful public involvement.
The Canadian Historical Review
However, that decision wasturned over to the MNR, the original creator of the conflict, by the Minister of NaturalResources to judge its feasibility, legitimacy, and implementation. However, at level five, citizens still do not havefinal decision-making authority; the final decision-making authority rests with the agency responsiblefor planning Arnstein However, the board is asked to formally approve those decisions.
This is the same year that the TAC was formed. According to Parenteau , these constitute low levels of participation and decision-making power because the public isnot sharing in decision-making. In this process, which is still presenttoday, four formal opportunities were provided for public consultation in the preparation of a TimberManagement Plan TMP Appendix 5. Decisions were made by the MNR staff and the public wereinvited on four separate occasions to give their comments Appendix 5.
These findings are consistent with those ofHiggelke and Duinker Distributions of decision-making from the MNR to local interests did not take place. This also implies that the MNR relied heavily on technical or scientificinformation as a sole basis for planning with no room for local knowledge input. Hence, true sharingofdecision-making between the MNR and local users did not take place. Similarly, public participation in the TMP process was characterized by MNR controlling all theinformation used in the planning process and seeking comments from the public rather than allowingthe public to share in decision-making.
That is, historically, authority over management of natural resources in theTemagami Area has rested primarily with the Minister ofNatural Resources and ministry staff. Therewas a lack of devolution of decision-making power from the Iv1NR to the local level. A look at the historical distributions of both ownership and legislative jurisdictions overresources in Canada reveals that, all natural resources within Crown lands are owned by provincialgovernments.
The only exceptions are offshore and marine resources, aboriginal reserves and landson which military installations are found; the Federal government owns such lands and resources Thompson and Eddy With Crown lands in Ontario, the Province retains both ownership andlegislative jurisdictions over them.
Through several pieces of legislation, such as the Natural Resources Act, the EnvironmentalProtection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Pesticides Act, and the EnvironmentalAssessmentAct, several line agencies ministries have been delegated the responsibility to administerthose pieces of legislation on behalf of the government. With the MNR, this has given the Minister ofNatural Resources andministry staff discretionary powers over natural resources as in timber, fisheries, and wildlifemanagement.
The implication is that powers conferred through an OIC can easily be challenged in a CourtofLaw as the decisions made under it are non-binding. The TAC acted in an advisory capacity thatconferred no authority, thereby limiting further its influence over decision-making. Another process that attempted to legitimize public involvement in resource managementdecision-making in Ontario was the Class Environmental Assessment EA for Timber Managementon Crown Lands.
However, this forum, which is based on a judicial model through public hearings,has been criticized by several authors including Dunster and Morgan et al. Throughits preferred and usual method of public hearings, the EA process offers no assurance that appellantconcerns and ideas will be taken into account. At the conclusion of public hearings, theEnvironmental Assessment Board decides how the plan will proceed. In addition, the granting ofopportunities to appeal is left to the EAB to decide. Therefore, while citizens concerns may be heard,the EA process simply provides one-way flows of communication from the EAB to the citizens.
TheEAB retains the authority to make decisions. Theseagencies have retained decision-making authority. In the same vein, the WSA represented a model of shared decision-makingbetween aboriginal people represented through the TAA members and Ontario represented throughnon-aboriginal interests. The next section explores what happened inlight of the data. Decision-making powerInfonnation Persuasion Consultation CooperationThe decision The decision The problem is The lim3 The decision isis made and is made and submitted, j46ned, made by thethe public an effort is opinions the decision is public, whichis infonned made to 5JJ2tti the shared with assumes a roleconvincej The questions were:who makes the decisions?
Table 6 provides a summary of the responses. Interview Responses No. Who makes the. MNR makes the decisions 31 50 62decisions? What decisions! One 1 decision 1 1 1 1 recommendations Six 6 recommendations 1 1 1 1 were made by the [see Appendix 2 for details]agencies? WSA20 decisions 10 10 [see Appendix 2 for details]cPc3. Were those decisions! Is there evidence of. I dont know 16 64 25recommendations WSAmade by the agencies cooptation, yes 08 63 13by the state or any of. The two recommendations pertained to two issues: a planning on awatershed basis; and b hiring of outside consultants to provide alternate sources of information inthe planning process Appendix 2.
The two recommendations above and one example each on preemption and cooptation of theCPC by the MNR, are explored in detail. These four issues test the distribution of decision-makingbetween the MNR and the CPC who, according to Ontario, were supposed to share decision-makingunder the co-management arrangement.
- Citations per year.
- Citations per year.
- The Inner Life of Doodles.
- Temagami A Debate On Wilderness?
- The Undertaker’s Daughter (Pitt Poetry Series);
On preemption, when the CPC advised the MNR to hire outside consultants to providealternate sources of information in the planning process, the MNR rejected the proposal on the basisthat there were no adequate thnds in the budget to do so 2K, 2M. Yet, when the CPC latersuggested that a meeting with special interest groups from southern Ontario be held in Temagamirather than Toronto due to financial constraints, the recommendation was rejected by the MNR. TheCPC members contended that they had already provided opportunities to all interest groups toparticipate in the process.
- Temagami : a debate on wilderness.
- Temagami: A Debate on Wilderness!
- Lee’s Army Has Not Lost Any of Its Prestige: A UNC Press Civil War Short, Excerpted from The Third Day at Gettysburg and Beyond, edited by Gary W. Gallagher (UNC Press E-Book Shorts).
- Earthroots is hiring!?
- Temagami A Debate On Wilderness!
- The Rape of the Muse.
They also contended that it was too expensive for all 17 members to travelfrom Temagami to Toronto and stay there for two days 2K, 2N, 2R, 2S. For example, as discussed earlier, the CPC could not hire outside consultants to provide alternatesources of information because it lacked a budget to do so and the MNR refused to sanction theproposal. As noted by Arnstein , partnership can work most effectively when the citizensgroup has the financial resources to hire and fire its own personnel. The MNR felt that theprocess of planning on a watershed basis was too time-consuming, costly, and there was no realjustification for it 1k 1C, 2L, 2N, This instance is explored in detailbelow.
InMay , the management options and zoning decisions were taken to the public for comment CPPb and the CPC was asked to conduct the public consultation process. The result was that theCPC members presided over information they did not generate and did not understand; a situationthat later caused them embarrassment at the public meetings 2K, 2L, 2N, 2P.
Nine 9 of the 11members refIted the assertion and two 2 felt the MNR may be correct. We have livedhere most of our lives and these guys [the MNR staffJ have come and gone. Most of theComprehensive Planning Program staff [the MNR] have not even been here for a year; they aremostly from outside this area. They [the IvINR stafi] should mind their technicaljargon and not our ability to understand technical information and make informed decisions; who dothey think we are? I have been here longer than all of them [the MNR staff].
I guess they wrote off the WSA in the beginning as abunch of activists who could not come up with anything better than them. They should thank the WSA for setting the stage in this area. It succeeded on the WSA because the members worked closely with the planner who was willing tospend time to explain and simplify technical information before they [the WSA members] madedecisions. For instance,all three respondents above characterized the long time they had spent living in the area, their workand life experiences, as sufficient conditions to make intelligent land-use decisions.
Although thischaracterization may be overstated, it underscores the relevance and value of local user knowledgein land-use planning and decision-making processes. In this case, the MNR played the role of both plan-maker and manager rather than facilitatorand collaborator. The MNR did not collaborate with the CPC in the production of managementoptions and zoning decisions; it made all the decisions.
Thefact that the CPC did not participate in the framing of the decisions but was asked by the MNR topresent the decisions it did not understand to the public, amounted to cooptation by the MNR. As in the past, the MNR made all the decisions and controlled the informationused in the comprehensive planning process, thereby limiting further the distribution of decisionmaking to the CPC. The lack of implementation of the WSA decisions and the three instances of preemption aboveare explored in detail. These instances test the distribution of decision-making between Ontario andthe WSA.
According to Ontario, the WSA was supposed to plan, evaluate, decide, implement,enforce, regulate, and monitor all uses of and activities on the land within its area ofjurisdiction MNR ; OEC b. As highlighted earlier, then Minister ofNatural Resources,Honourable Bud Wildman, announced on August 17, that legislation empowering the WSA tomake decisions was already introduced in Cabinet and was on the order list. In a memorandum sent to the establishing agencies Ontario and the TAA on July 29, ,the WSA demanded reassurance on continued funding and the status of its plan.
The evidence above suggests that Ontario never intended to confer the necessary legislativeauthority to the WSA as earlier promised. The WSA spent three years developing a plan that it couldnot implement in the end. But as discussed earlier, the MNR rather than theComprehensive Planning Council makes decisions about the comprehensive planning process. Therefore, this releasesuggests that although the WSA made decisions, Ontario still reserved the right to judge thelegitimacy and feasibility of those decisions.
This relegated the WSA to an advisory status. Threepoints cast doubt on the WSA as an exercise in genuine public participation. This suggests that the WSA was set up as a therapeutic exercise rather than genuine publicparticipation in decision-making. Arnstein Here, the WSA was engaged in an extensive activity of planning for four years. The focusof the planning exercise was on generating consensus over use of resources within the WSA area.
While the WSA had defacto authorityto make decisions, it lacked the authority to implement those decisions. A summary of the responses is shown in Table 7. Appendix2 lists detailed responses to the questions. As discussed earlier, the MNR derived its authority to make decisions over natural resourcesprimarily from the Natural Resources Act R. In order to understand and evaluate thesources of authority of the two co-management agencies under study, a review of the mechanismsby which Ontario has conferred authority to local levels in the past is necessary.
The mechanismsinclude: a Acts of the Legislature [e. What are the stated Recommend a comprehensive plan; 1 1 1 1 management establish and manage the publicfunctions? An MOU is a private agreement reached betweena Province e. However,the terms of an MOU are often phrased so that it deviates from the conditions enforceable underContract Law pers.
May 12, This implies that legislative authority cannot be conferred through an OICas the parent statute will specify the locus of authority. Therefore, authorityconferred through both MOUs and OICs is subject to usurpation by those agencies with thelegislative authority.
However, as highlighted earlier, the CPC understood its role within the advisory capacity toinvolve some degree of decision-making power; and hence the concern that it was preempted andcoopted by the MNR. OEC a, a. In Clause b above, this view is rather strengthened inthat for the CPC to establish and manage a public consultation process in the development of thecomprehensive plan, it would have to arrive at a set of decisions and implement those decisions.
However, Clauses a , b , and d above do not deal directly with the day-to-day decision-makingand authority role requirements of the CPC; they relate to peripheral responsibilities of the CPC inrecommending a plan to the Minister. From a comanagement point ofview, this clause tests if decision-making authority was shared between the CPCand the MNR. Implicit in this Clause is that decisions are made by theMNR. In the MOU, the followingmandate of the WSA was specified MNR a The Wendaban Stewardship Authority shall monitor, undertake studies of, and planfor, all uses of and activities on the land within its area ofjurisdiction, and report itsfindings from time to time to the Teme-Augama Anishnabai and Ontario; and b It is the intention of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai and Ontario to assignresponsibility to the Wendaban Stewardship Authority to plan, decide, implement,enforce, regulate, and monitor all uses of and activities on the land within its area ofjurisdiction.
This function was originallyspecified in the OIC. Clause b above only specifies the intent by bothOntario and the TAA to assign further responsibility to the WSA at some point in the future. However, as discussed earlier, Ontario never conferred the necessary legislation to the WSA. A mandate of three 3 years is not sufficient toplan and implement a year plan.
The Great Trail Debate: Why Wilderness Needs More Trails
The announcement effectivelyreduced the WSA decisions to recommendations thereby relegating the WSA to an advisory status. The distributions of decision-making authority from the state to local levels under comanagement were not any different from the past. In the past, decision-making authority wasredistributed internally within the MNR. That is, therewas no true devolution of decision-making power from the MNR to the local levels. For the CPC, its involvement in co-management did not result in the redistribution ofdecision-making authority from the state to the CPC; the MNR retained decision-making authority.
However, this is not to suggest that co-management failed; only it did not constitute true devolutionsof decision-making to local levels. This is because the decisions supposedly codetermined between themdid not also involve common control over the means and conditions of decision-making-- theauthority to make decisions and the ability to suggest changes in policy or change policy itself. There was also a lack of clarity in the CPC mandate about what authority role the CPC playedwithin its advisory capacity.
It is important that theparticipants are aware of such arrangements and their stipulated decision-making requirements fromthe outset. The fact that the WSA was set up as a decision-making body but without the legislativeauthority to implement its decision-making, suggests that its involvement in co-managementcomprised degrees of tokenism. Again, this is not to suggest that co-managementfailed in this case. To the contrary, it worked internally because both the aboriginal and non-aboriginal representatives on the Authority were able to reach mutually acceptable decisions throughconsensus.
Most of the broader publics also supported those decisions. However, the inadequacy of the WSA co-management model speaks to the failure by Ontarioto delegate the legislative authority necessary for the WSA to implement its decisions. Initially,Ontario had promised to delegate such authority to the WSA.
Politicaldecentralization would include actual delegations of decision-making power through Acts of theLegislature, as compared to administrative decentralization that relies on varying degrees ofdevolution of responsibility but not authority. Participation by stakeholders in co-management is one facet; the other is participation of thebroader publics in such arrangements. How did the co-management agencies share decision-makingwith the local publics or users? This question is explored in the following section.
While such groups represent specific local interests, they may not always represent all thelocal users and concerned citizens in the area, Sometimes, only the most vocal groups or individualsare nominated to local management boards. Therefore, it was felt necessary in this study to evaluatethe levels ofpublic involvement in the planning and decision-making processes of the co-managementagencies as well. For the purposes of analysis, the first four questions were classified into three themes:information; methods; and key issues.
Using pattern matching, some sub-themes emerged from thedata. The public participation processes of the two agencies in this study were compared using thesesub-themes. Under information emerged three sub-themes: volume of information provided; time ofdelivery of information to the public; and complexity of information. Under methods emerged twosub-themes: proactive methods; and reactive methods. Under key issues emerged two sub-themes:resource-related issues; and process-related issues.
The issues are: road access; land availabilityfor mining;and old-growthprotection Table 8. Similarly, two process-related issues common among all threecategories of respondents were analyzed. The issues are: needfor watershed-basedplanning; andlack ofprovincialfocus in planning Table 8. Between the CPC and public respondents the common process-relatedissue raised was lack ofclarity of the planning process. Between the WSA and public respondents,the common issue raised was a zoning decision that excluded a major canoe route Table 8.
Ontario also expected both the CPC and theWSA to genuinely involve the public in their planning and decision-making processes. That is, bothagencies were expected to redistribute decision-making to the local public by sharing decisions withthem. At level six, planning anddecision-making responsibilities are shared between the powerholders and the public.
Given these expectations, how did both the CPC and the WSAinvolve the public in their planning and decision-making processes? These are important in ensuring two-way communication between officials andthe public. In particular, the volume of information provided, time ofdelivery of information, anddegree ofcomplexity ofinformation provided, are important information attributes and first steps inconsulting with the public.
However, it is the methods used in consulting with the public that will ultimately determineifthere are two-way flows of information between officials and the public, by promoting conditionsconducive to shared decision-making. Reactive methods such as open house meetings, write-ins,pamphlets, and posters are characterized by one-way flows of information Arnstein Click the Internet Zone. If you do not have to customize your Internet security settings, click Default Level. Then go to step 5. Click OK to close the Internet Options popup. Chrome On the Control button top right of browser , select Settings from dropdown.
In stock online Not available in stores. The Temagami region of northern Ontario has been a magnet for recreational canoeists since the s, when city dwellers began embarking on long, gruelling trips to reach its unfettered wilderness. The land is steeped in the history of its tribal inhabitants, the…. Ships within weeks Not available in stores. For many Canadians, wilderness is a fairly straightforward idea — an untouched natural place to visit and to protect. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages.
Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it…. Over the past two decades, the question of who owns the land of Temagami and how the land should be used has caused a debate of unparalleled intensity. For the native people, it is their lands under attack. For environmentalists from all parts of Ontario, it is a…. Temagami Greenstone Belt by Jesse Russel. Out of stock online Not available in stores.