Indigenous communities, the bioeconomy and natural resource development

Citation

Davidson-Hunt, I.J. and Turner, K.L. (2012), "Indigenous communities, the bioeconomy and natural resource development", Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 6 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/jec.2012.32906caa.001

Indigenous communities, the bioeconomy and natural resource development

Article Type: Guest editorial From: Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Volume 6, Issue 3

About the Guest EditorsIain J. Davidson-Hunt is an Associate Professor at the Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba. He works with Anishinaabe First Nations of northwestern Ontario to understand and apply knowledge-based solutions for territorial planning, community-based resource management and biodiversity-based enterprise development. He recently published, with R. Michael O’Flaherty and the Whitefeather Forest Management Corporation, the Pikangikum Cultural Landscape Documentation Guide, Aboriginal Issues Press, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Katherine L. Turner is a PhD student at the Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba. She completed her Master of Natural Resources Management degree in 2010. Her interests center on the use of biocultural resources for community economic development, particularly related to food systems.

This special issue of the Journal of Enterprising Communities considers Indigenous perspectives on product and service development for the bioeconomy within the broader context of Indigenous enterprises for natural resource development.

The impetus for this special issue on Indigenous communities, the bioeconomy and natural resource development is to bring together several emerging strands of research related to Indigenous peoples, products developed for the bioeconomy and Indigenous enterprises. It builds upon previous work presented in a special issue of the Journal of the Commons (Davidson-Hunt and Berkes, 2010) and earlier work presented in the Journal of Enterprising Communities (Berkes and Davidson-Hunt, 2007). This work brought together a group of cases that highlight the linkages between social, or community, enterprise and local commons. While this was situated within literature related to natural resource management there has also been much work on Indigenous entrepreneurship and enterprise in the business literature. For example, Anderson et al. (2006) in the Journal of World Business documented the ways by which Indigenous communities are initiating enterprises that meet a diversity of goals and often interact with national and global economies in the agriculture and mining sectors. In order to bring these different streams of research into a conversation, a multi-university research project, “Finding a balance in the bioeconomy: new partnerships between indigenous socioeconomic enterprises, research institutions and corporations”, was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and initiated in 2007. This project undertook three case studies in Canada and one in New Zealand[1]. This special issue includes three cases from this project presented at the IUCN/CEESP Sharing Power Conference in Whakatane, New Zealand during January of 2011, along with one case presented in another session at this conference, and two papers submitted in response to a general call for papers to readers of this journal.

Our purpose in this special issue is to expand the discussion of Indigenous participation in the economic development of biological resources and natural resources more generally. There is a rich discussion concerning the relationships between Indigenous communities, bioeconomy and natural resource development from the point of view of intellectual property rights and compensation (Dutfield, 2004; Posey and Dutfield, 1996). This has focused on how enterprises should compensate Indigenous peoples, communities and individuals, either retroactively or proactively, for the use of Indigenous knowledge or resources from Indigenous territories. More recently the role of intellectual property rights tools, such as protected denomination of origin and biocultural protocols, are being utilized for the development of biological products by Indigenous communities and enterprises (Dutfield, 2011; Bavikatte and Jonas, 2009; Blackmore and Keeley, 2012). Our interests parallel and complement such efforts that consider the perspective of Indigenous actors in developing biological products and natural resource enterprises.

Indigenous communities in northern and rural regions of Canada face significant economic challenges. As noted in cases related to Indigenous enterprises and entrepreneurship from other countries and work documenting the wider socio-economic and political position of many Indigenous peoples, this appears to be common across many regions of the world (Hindle and Landsdowne, 2005; United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2009). The roots of the challenges are multifaceted and intersect with political and demographic processes also occurring in these regions. These include:

• •

  the traditional economic opportunities available through the traditional natural resource sector are in transition;

• •

  Indigenous people are the majority population in many rural regions and demographic projections sustain this trend; and

• •

  Indigenous people are increasingly seeing natural resource-based enterprises as central to their aspirations of self-determination and sustainable communities (Anderson et al., 2006).

This period of social, cultural and economic transition has the potential to create new opportunities for Indigenous communities. For example, in Canada, northern First Nations have often used a social enterprise vehicle to negotiate and partner with industry in the oil, gas and mineral sectors in order to obtain multiple benefits from natural resource development. An important insight from this work is the application of regulation theory that considers how values influence participation in business ventures (Anderson and Bone, 1995; Anderson and Giberson, 2004). Dependency and modernization theories have dominated analysis of natural resource development and often positioned Indigenous communities as either victims or impediments to development. Regulation theory, on the other hand, recognizes that values are important in the mission and organization of enterprises and posit that it is possible for diverse, community-based approaches to development to exist successfully and simultaneously alongside the well-entrenched geopolitical and economic system based on modernist development principles. In doing so regulation theory opens a perspective that supports value-based businesses and the possibility of a distinct Indigenous paradigm for product and service innovation of biological organisms and natural resource development. In bringing together this set of exploratory cases our goal is to provide some preliminary perspectives on the nuances of such a paradigm.

We place an emphasis on the bioeconomy in our selection of cases as it is a sector that includes a wide range of economic activities. We broadly define bioeconomy as enterprises based on the direct or indirect use of biological resources, including discoveries, and related products and services arising out of the biosciences. This is consistent with Natural Resources Canada’s (2012) definition of bioeconomy as, “An economy based on the manufacturing and trade of commodities and services derived from renewable biological resources as well as on the trade of non-timber forest products” (www.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/terms/browse/B). Our definition is broader than some others that seek to limit bioeconomy to product and service development related to “life sciences” and biotechnology (Cooke, 2007; Cooper, 2008). The central issue, in our perspective, is the use of biological organisms for the development of products and services and related natural resource enterprises.

Current bioeconomy business models have often suggested a narrow role for Indigenous people largely limited to supplying knowledge they hold about biological resources (traditional knowledge) and acting as harvesters of raw materials at the bottom of the value chain. However, international conventions, emerging certification programs for biotrade, and case law from many jurisdictions now require Indigenous people to be involved in decision-making and benefit sharing for natural resources (Kuanpoth, 2005; Rosenthal, 2006; Soejarto et al., 2005). Indigenous people themselves are also insisting upon fair terms of trade with external partners and the formation of symmetrical partnerships for resource development (Chiefs of Ontario, 2008). The bioeconomic sector highlights the role of innovation and commercialization for biological products and services and natural resource development. This focus on innovation and commercialization raises the question of whether such processes are consistent with Indigenous goals and values and how Indigenous peoples are negotiating potential tensions.

As Hindle and Lansdowne (2005, p. 133) have noted one of the challenges with the concept of Indigenous entrepreneurship is the perceived conflict between tradition and innovation. They explain:

Modern entrepreneurship is focused upon the commercialization of innovation. A prime motive in all Indigenous nations’ desires for self-determination is preservation of heritage. The superficial temptation is to classify the Indigenous heritage orientation as “looking back” and contrast it with the mainstream entrepreneurship ethic of “looking forward.” This is a false dichotomy but a real impediment to creating well-grounded study and execution of Indigenous enterprise. The challenge is to understand the dynamic potential inherent in heritage, not simply regard it as a roadblock to future-oriented commercial development.

In this special issue you will find six cases that focus on looking forward within the context of product and service innovation and natural resource development. We begin with four cases from Canada that focus specifically on the use of biological resources for the development of Indigenous enterprises. These cases cover a wide geographic range from the Arctic (Nunavit), Western Canada (Coastal British Columbia), central Canada (Northwestern Ontario) and eastern Canada (Quebec), and cultural diversity, including Inuit, Tsimshian, Cree and Anishinaabe. We open the issue with a focus on opportunity identification for the Inuit commercial caribou harvest through a case study undertaken by Meis Mason, Anderson and Dana. Turner, Berkes and Turner broaden our discussion of the bioeconomy through a consideration of ecocultural tourism development from the North Coast of British Columbia. We then turn to two cases that present Indigenous perspectives regarding innovation and product development of biological resources. Pengelly and Davidson-Hunt examine the perspectives of Pikangikum First Nation members on partnerships related to non-timber forest product development. Cuerrier and colleagues draw upon their nearly ten years of work with Cree communitie in Quebec and present a reflection on the ongoing processes of partnership building related to researching the contributions of medicinal plants in the treatment of diabetes. While these cases present a diversity of economic opportunities and perspectives they share a common central concern with biological organisms and economic development.

The issue then extends the examination of Indigenous perspectives on natural resource development through the case prepared by Bargh focused on geothermal energy from New Zealand. This case provides a contrast to the other cases in that it considers natural resource enterprise development pursued by a number of Māori communities based upon the use of a physical resource. We complete the issue with an overview by Giovannia of an emerging concept in Latin America – “Buen Vivir” (Living Well) – that is guiding many Indigenous communities of the region in considering an appropriate path for natural resource development. While each case is distinct, the set provides some commonalities that offer initial reflections on an Indigenous paradigm for product and service innovation for the bioeconomy and natural resource development.

In all of the cases it is clear that Indigenous communities consider that a primary goal of any natural resource enterprise, including product and service innovation, is to benefit their communities. However, these benefits are not reducible to only economic criteria but include broader political benefits in situating their communities to participate effectively in decisions about how resources are used for development within their traditional territories. In several cases as well, social, cultural and ecological benefits, including providing learning opportunities for younger community members, are also identified as key motivations for considering engagement in natural resource development. Community benefits are often conceptualised as a socially embracing aim explicitly seeking to not only create opportunities for individuals, but to extend benefits widely within Indigenous communities. Broad and socially inclusive conceptualizations of potential engagement in natural resource development underscores the “nation building”[2] character that many of the cases suggest.

A point of emphasis across the papers is the centrality of Indigenous values in shaping product and service innovation and natural resource development. Values, for example, are vital in shaping how risks and benefits are conceived and guide deliberations. A primary focus of deliberation in the pursuit of opportunities in the bioeconomy rests on balancing potential, broadly-defined benefits, with concerns over biological sustainability of the resource base as well as concerns related to loss of local control over traditional knowledge and any innovation resulting from novel product or service development. These complex, strategic, long-term deliberations also influence opportunity recognition processes and the establishment of boundaries, or “off-limits areas”, as suggested by the Tsimshian and other cases.

While there are distinct perspectives about the commercialization of products that utilize plants or animals, what is common across the cases is that the community should only proceed down such a path if they are in control of decisions along the chain of innovation. In both the case of the Cree and Anishinaabe, they did not rule out the development of plant products but did say that the approach would need to be cautious and require the guidance of their elders to insure that any resulting product was consistent with their values. Importantly, this included the ability to slow down or stop the process if elders required time to consider the implications of a given direction. This suggests that a critical factor in product development for the bioeconomy is the establishment of Indigenous organizations, such as community-based enterprises, to lead the process and form institutions that reflect community values to guide such enterprises. Such organisations may have a novel character, bringing together new groups of individuals, who may include representatives of kinship groups, youth, elders, elected and hereditary or traditional leadership.

Furthermore, in some cases, such as the case of the Māori, there is a ready market for the goods and services supplied by Indigenous enterprises. However, in other cases markets are not assured and ultimately considerations of economic viability must also factor into if, how, and which biological products are developed and marketed. Isolation from markets, as the Inuit case suggests, can influence opportunity recognition as well as impact the marketing and commercial success of products and services based on local biological resources.

Many of the cases also make reference to Indigenous perspectives on partnerships with third parties, including universities and research institutions, governments or private businesses, for the development of local biological and natural resources. While experiences and perspectives varied, an important theme, particularly from the Canadian cases, is the primacy of Indigenous people “being in the driver’s seat” and a standard of partnership that reflects genuine commitment to respect and equality.

From the range of cases presented in this issue, it is clear that some Indigenous communities in diverse contexts are, with great care and deliberation, assessing the potential of product and service innovation for the bioeconomy and natural resource development to provide benefits for their communities. Rather than a rejection of innovation and development what emerges is the need for institutions, such as community-based enterprises, and in some cases partnerships, that provide the means for communities to deliberate about the risks and benefits and make decisions regarding future directions consistent with their values.

The New Zealand case was published earlier in this journal as: Dana and Hipango (2011).

We borrow a phrase adopted by the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development (see University of Arizona, 2012: http://rebuildingnativenations.com/).

Iain J. Davidson-Hunt, Katherine L. TurnerGuest Editors