Search results

The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) between the Inuit in the Nunavut Settlement Area (formerly part of the Northwest Territories) and the Crown of Canada, led to the creation of Nunavut in 1999. A public government in the Inuit homeland, Nunavut has the responsibility to put into effect the Inuit rights and benefits set out in the NLCA as well as provide a wide range of services tailored to the needs of all Nunavummiut of which 85% are Inuit. With a vast and largely untapped mineral, oil, and gas potential, Nunavut is now preparing to a private sector market economy open to global investors in natural resource exploration and exploitation. Certainly, Nunavut is a place where economic development and indigenous rights intersect crosscutting global, national, and territorial boundaries. This chapter looks at how indigenous peoples rights and the imperatives of a globalized/globalizing economy, are projected into and taken up by Nunavut Arctic College, Nunavut's sole postsecondary education institution. Integrating textual and contextual instances of analysis, this chapter highlights how the College translates seemingly conflicting policy messages, into all-encompassing education practices that weave into the omnipresent right to indigenous self-determination.

This paper aims to explore the socio-political implications of climate change as the melting ice ignites new debates over territorial sovereignty of Arctic coastal states. Previously ice-jammed waterways are now open, and a number of recent geological surveys have identified new potential sites with vast energy resources. Competition over resources causes states to question each other’s jurisdiction over specific parts of the Arctic. What used to be internal waters of one particular state can now be referred to as international waters by other actors interested in the benefits of resource extraction. Arctic indigenous groups, especially the Inuit, and Sami are directly affected by the current governance patterns that are fragmented across too many different bodies dealing with maritime navigation, tourism, fisheries and administration.

The paper uses a comparative study based on literature review combined with regional reports related to climatic and social impacts analysed jointly with live elements provided by international conferences discussions, workshops and direct conversations in “petit comités” style held in Norway, Greenland and Canada in the period of October 2014 until the first quarter of July 2015, with the representatives of Sami and Inuit communities.

The paper demonstrates that Arctic governance is currently fragmented and the largest inter-governmental organisation in the region, the Arctic Council, has only advisory powers, and although its norm-making method helps with the design, it is not effective to implement Arctic-wide policies for responsible management of energy resources.

The research considered methodological aspects like the difficulty in measuring the elements researched mainly when dealing with the diverse nature of responses from the indigenous populations to environmental impacts and the varied nature of effects in different studied areas.

As the Arctic is set to become the main global resource base and a major trade corridor, it is crucial to identify the dangers that poor institutional design can cause in relation to the control of extractive industries, sustainable development and the well-being of the region’s indigenous population.

In addition to governance reform, social arrangements should follow to ensure the indigenous populations can also participate in the process to adapt and mitigate the impact of climate change on their traditional livelihood strategies.

The paper provides an overview on governance reform and social arrangements to ensure that indigenous populations can also participate in the process to adapt and mitigate the impact of climate change on their traditional livelihood strategies. As the Arctic is set to become the main global resource base and a major trade corridor, the paper identified the risks of poor institutional design in relation to the control of extractive industries, sustainable development and the well-being of the region’s indigenous population.

For many Indigenous nations globally, ethics is a conversation. The purpose of this paper is to share and mobilize knowledge to build relationships and capacities regarding the ethics review and approval of research with Indigenous peoples throughout Atlantic Canada. The authors share key principles that emerged for shifting practices that recognize Indigenous rights holders through ethical research review practice.

The NunatuKavut Inuit hosted and led a two-day gathering on March 2019 in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, to promote a regional dialogue on Indigenous Research Governance. It brought together Indigenous Nations within the Atlantic Region and invited guests from institutional ethics review boards and researchers in the region to address the principles-to-policy-to-practice gap as it relates to the research ethics review process. Called “Naalak”, an Inuktitut word that means “to listen and to pay close attention”, the gathering created a dynamic moment of respect and understanding of how to work better together and support one another in research with Indigenous peoples on Indigenous lands.

Through this process of dialogue and reflection, emergent principles and practices for “good” research ethics were collectively identified. Open dialogue between institutional ethics boards and Indigenous research review committees acknowledged past and current research practices from Indigenous peoples’ perspectives; supported and encouraged community-led research; articulated and exemplified Indigenous ownership and control of data; promoted and practiced ethical and responsible research with Indigenous peoples; and supported and emphasized rights based approaches within the current research regulatory system. Key principles emerged for shifting paradigms to honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice, including: recognizing Indigenous peoples as rights holders with sovereignty over research; accepting collective responsibility for research in a “good” way; enlarging the sphere of ethical consideration to include the land; acknowledging that “The stories are ours” through Indigenous-led (or co-led) research; articulating relationships between Indigenous and Research Ethics Board (REB) approvals; addressing justice and proportionate review of Indigenous research; and, means of identifying the Indigenous governing authority for approving research.

Future steps (including further research) include pursuing collective responsibilities towards empowering Indigenous communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. This entails pursuing further understanding of how to move forward in recognition and respect for Indigenous peoples as rights holders, and disrupting mainstream dialogue around Indigenous peoples as “stakeholders” in research.

The first step in moving forward in a way that embraces Indigenous principles is to deeply embed the respect of Indigenous peoples as rights holders across and within REBs. This shift in perspective changes our collective responsibilities in equitable ways, reflecting and respecting differing impetus and resources between the two parties: “equity” does imply “equality”. Several examples of practical changes to REB procedures and considerations are detailed.

What the authors have discovered is that it is not just about academic or institutional REB decolonization: there are broad systematic issues at play. However, pursuing the collective responsibilities outlined in our paper should work towards empowering communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. Indigenous peoples are rights holders, and have governance over research, including the autonomy to make decisions about themselves, their future, and their past.

The value is in its guidance around how authentic partnerships can develop that promote equity with regard to community and researcher and community/researcher voice and power throughout the research lifecycle, including through research ethics reviews that respect Indigenous rights, world views and ways of knowing. It helps to show how both Indigenous and non-Indigenous institutions can collectively honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice.

This paper aims to place a discussion of traditional knowledge and the indigenous voice within the framework of Arctic governance.

The study involves literature review spanning different disciplines and highlighting important case studies.

The advance of low-cost, portable technology has brought about tremendous opportunities for indigenous people. Knowledge and observation are no longer monopolised by scholars, filmmakers or politicians based in the West. Film has proved to be a powerful tool for cultural preservation while the internet (video sharing sites and social media platforms in particular) have empowered local communities and facilitated their involvement in political activism and local governance. New ways to represent themselves have been a crucial step forward, yet the new goal is to work towards greater recognition of the “indigenous voice” and ensure traditional knowledge is not treated as anecdotal and irrelevant in managing Arctic affairs..

The conclusions reached in the discussion need to be further explored by extending the research into Inuit communities to survey how technology can facilitate and impact collaborative forms of governance in the Arctic.

This research provides an increased understanding of how technology transforms power relations. Policymakers can see that the indigenous community in the Arctic is not lodged in the past. Their increased use of new technology can serve as an effective oversight of political decisions and economic initiatives, particularly those relating to oil and gas exploration in the region.

Indigenous views and knowledge are literally crossing borders through media. Initially perceived as a cultural threat, film, video and internet are now regarded as powerful technology tools for cultural preservation and empowerment of local communities. In other words, the modern communication patterns are a crucial mean of indigenous population take part of the current global debate, express their concerns, reinforce their values and traditions and have an active voice in the globalised world.

This paper illustrates how technology helps indigenous communities to address different economic, environmental, cultural, educational, research and other issues in the Arctic. Robust evidence is presented to support the call for traditional knowledge to become an integral part of decision-making processes across all institutions of governance in the Arctic.

Teacher education has existed in Nunavut, Canada, for more than 40 years, yet the programs offered have not been able to meet the demand for Inuit educators in the territory. The reasons for this are complex, but related to the history of education in Nunavut, the policies and employment conditions impacting educators and the conflicting values of colonial and Inuit ways of being and understanding the world. However dim the embers of teacher education programs may appear, when statistics on graduation rates from postsecondary or Inuit composition in schools are shared, there are many initiatives that reinvigorate the flames. This chapter outlines five such initiatives in which three critical factors emerge that offer suggestions for restructuring teacher education to support Inuit.

This case study aims to explore the affect of Canadian Inuit culture on recognizing opportunities from caribou when participating in the bio economy and decision making and benefit sharing considerations for Inuit partnerships arsing from the northern bioeconomy.

This Inuit case study in northern Canada combined Elder interviews, a focus group and product elicitation techniques. First, the Inuit identified traditional uses of caribou for health care. Second, they explored its potential uses for biomedicines, nutraceuticals and functional foods. Third, they discussed partnerships for development and benefits that should result.

Inuit had the right to develop and sell caribou products. Decisions about products and processes should be up to the community. Ensuring food security was critical. They preferred partnering with Inuit and northern businesses and government. University and business partnerships needed to provide ongoing monetary and non‐monetary benefits such as employment, new skills and knowledge, and networks.

Conclusions based on one case study need to be confirmed by surveying other Inuit communities. Future research should also include Inuit youth.

This research provides an increased understanding of the commons, the use of traditional resources, food security and the interaction of Indigenous culture on opportunity recognition for policy makers, businesses, indigenous communities, and university researchers.

This research paper integrates commons, indigenous entrepreneurship, opportunity recognition and bioeconomy. Furthermore, it provides the Inuit with a voice which they feel has been lacking in the business literature.

Primary sector firms by and large operate on indigenous territories across the world. In Canada, partnerships, land rights settlements, decolonization and reconciliation efforts provide indigenous communities with the financial means and the political power to stop projects they consider contrary to their traditions. How can companies acquire legitimacy among indigenous communities? This paper aims to answer this question by examining what the economic issues are among indigenous communities, how theories and practices of sustainable and legitimacy management articulated and how some basic notions of traditional indigenous teachings could inform non-indigenous managers are and help them interact better with indigenous leaders and their communities.

This paper was informed about indigenous knowledge by secondary and primary indigenous and business sources from North America and from other areas such as Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. Information about business relations with indigenous communities and stakeholders mostly came from non-indigenous sources, including scholarly results obtained within indigenous communities.

Sources of incompatibility between indigenous and European/Western worldviews are described. A selection of indigenous traditional beliefs and decision-making processes are presented, based on indigenous traditions around the Great Lakes region of North America. A discussion of desirable options for both indigenous and non-indigenous decision-makers to establish business legitimacy by overcoming their misperceptions is included.

A better understanding of economic issues in indigenous communities, indigenous perspectives and current developments, as well as lessons from the recent decades on successes and failures at establishing business legitimacy among indigenous communities, will help government and business decision-makers, as well as students and academic scholars.

Mainly based on management legitimacy theory and Anishnaabe knowledge, this paper makes an original contribution to the understanding of Indigenous strategic thinking in North America in its interaction with business legitimacy building issues.