Modelling land-use change for indigenous socio-economic development: Curve Lake First Nation, Canada
1Natural Resources Canada; 2University of Waterloo, Canada
Land-use change is mainly driven by factors of socio-economic development, a relationship between economic activity and social life to improve the well-being of people. The indicator of socio-economic development used for Indigenous communities in Canada is the Community Well-Being Index (CWB). A CWB score for a community is based on income, education, housing, and labour. The relationship of these CWB variables to socio-economic drivers of land-use change such as demography, technology, industry, and employment is complex; modelling these variables will explain the relationship.
An integrated agent-based model on land-use decision-making that will assist First Nations to understand the relationship of CWB variables to socio-economic drivers of land-use change is being developed in collaboration with Curve Lake First Nation, a community 120 km’s north-east of Toronto. The model will be validated if it simulates a realistic-like scenario, such that it assists First Nations in land-use decision-making.
Innovations in Indigenous land tenure in Canada: Reconciliation as the catalyst
Natural Resources Canada, Canada
The Government of Canada (hereafter Crown) is committed to achieving reconciliation with Indigenous peoples “through a renewed, nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-Crown relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership as the foundation for transformative change.” Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) means that Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples must be transformed. Such transformation has resulted in 10 principles, rooted in s35 of the Constitution Act 1982, in UNDRIP, in the Royal Commission on the Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) and in the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Thus, innovations in Indigenous land tenure engage both the Crown’s fiduciary duty to Indigenous peoples and the Honour of the Crown. This means that spatializing Canadians now means rethinking borders and boundaries. Six Crown projects illustrate meaningful and uplifting engagement with Indigenous peoples vis-à-vis-land tenure.
Exploring pluralism: building resilience and respect
Murray Chambers, Australia
When the British came to Australia in 1788, they brought with them notions of land governance based upon commerce and individual ownership that were in sharp contrast with those of the original inhabitants whose land governance systems were underpinned by communal ownership and inalienability.
Ignoring the knowledge and techniques of the Aboriginal people well adapted to the land, the British settlers dispossessed the original inhabitants of their land. Despite the impact of dispossession, Aboriginal governance systems and relationships to land remain strong.
Even after recognition of Indigenous land rights, traditional land governance systems are required to give way to Western notions of land management. The challenge is to reconcile Western land policy approaches with Indigenous concepts. The way forward is a dialogue based on respect for Indigenous land governance systems, rather than a desire that they “yield” to, and conform with, non-Indigenous land policies.
First nations' post-counter map praxis
Royal Roads University, Canada
First Nations Geomatics: a Post-Counter Map Praxis
Historically, survey and map making have represented power and authority for land holders and within contested lands space. In the examination of past Canadian counter map actions, a new theory building is proposed of ‘Post-counter mapping’. The theory's evidence is from an emerging geomatics praxis happening in First Nations today with new innovations in geomatics technologies and implementations.
This theory was derived from semi-directed interviewees, of indigenous based agents, geo-industry professionals and topic knowledgeable academics. These groups were interviewed about their counter map views of: past, present, and future comments on a topic which all knew about in varying degrees over recent times.
Triangulation of these counter map dialogues provides new evidence as to a Post-counter map praxis perspective. This theory building offers with the literature, new research examining and gaining qualitative knowledge as to a future reconciliation avenue via current geomatics.