Long-term and meaningful community leadership and engagement in natural resources and environmental governance through university access programs

Introduction

After centuries of marginalization, governments and their various agencies that deal with natural resources and the environment are beginning to open deliberation processes towards including local and Indigenous people in planning and governance. This shift towards community inclusion has been underway for several decades and has resulted in meaningful outcomes for participation in some regions (Bockstael, Bahia, Sexias, & Berkes, 2016; Kehaulani Watson, 2016; Maclean, Ross, Cuthill, & Rist, 2013; Premauer & Berkes, 2015; Zurba, Diduck, & Sinclair, 2016). Local and Indigenous participation exists in different formats depending on the region, parties involved, and power-sharing arrangement that is in place (Zurba et al., 2012). Most partnership arrangements are in the form of co-management or collaborative governance, which involves a devolution of authority from the state towards joint decision making with communities or local resource users (Borrini-Feyerabend, Pimbert, Farvar, Kothari, & Renard, 2004; Zurba et al., 2012). Brinkerhoff (2002) states, “Partnership encompasses mutual influence, with a careful balance between synergy and respective autonomy, which incorporates mutual respect, equal participation in decision making, mutual accountability and transparency.” There are ongoing critiques from communities and academics with regards to such partnership characteristics and how engagement and local and Indigenous participation in governance takes shape (Downie, 2016; Lockwood, 2010; Zurba et al., 2016), indicating that there is still work to be done towards developing meaningful local and Indigenous participation. Here, I make the argument for a learning component and address the role of universities in developing accessible educational programming towards building community capacity for engaging in long-term and meaningful natural resources and environmental governance.

Background

Despite local and Indigenous participation being far from perfect, the movement towards collaboration has evolved into a “new paradigm” for natural resources and environmental governance and has resulted in the development of frameworks that are based upon different amounts and forms of local and Indigenous participation (Berkes, 2009; Curtis et al., 2014; Gruber, 2010). Several frameworks have been developed by leading supranational organizations, such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Such organizations can have great influence on regional policy development and implementation. The Durban Accord, emerging from the V^th IUCN World Parks Congress in 2003, is one of the first articulations of the “new paradigm” for local and Indigenous participation in natural resources and environmental governance. IUCN frameworks are developed through different working groups which often involve regional stakeholders including local and Indigenous peoples. ¹ Another example, and perhaps the most widely adopted framework that includes declarations relating to Indigenous rights relating to natural resources and environmental governance is the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Fifteen of the forty-six UNDRIP declarations relate to the ability of Indigenous peoples to participate in governance (i.e., decision-making) processes that affect their livelihoods (United Nations, 2007). Such frameworks, while not legally binding, are meant to provide knowledge towards guiding regional governance processes.

A range of different kinds of practical approaches exist towards involving local and Indigenous communities in participating in natural resources or environmental governance. Strategies such as consultations, hearings, and participatory decision making are often developed by governments and/or proponents (i.e., natural resource developers, conservation organizations) that are often bound by the regulatory requirements of the region and when there is the potential for a project to impact local or Indigenous rights and/or livelihoods. For example, the Canadian government has a fiduciary responsibility including baseline mandates for consulting with Indigenous peoples ² if resource or other types of developments will impact their traditional lands. Governments and proponents may also have social and environmental responsibility protocols that call for community participation built into their organizational or corporate frameworks (Lozano, Albareda, & Ysa, 2016). This is indicative of a shift in attitudes towards favoring participation.

The movement towards increased participation has meant that local and Indigenous people have been engaging in highly politicized processes often with limited training and knowledge of the environmental, economic, and social policies that are central to natural resources and environmental governance (Andersson & Agrawal, 2011). In response to this gap, there has been a call for a “capacity building approach” for community leaders (Leys & Vanclay, 2011). Capacity building for communities is also often included in the social-economic section of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) ³ for natural resources development projects and is generally related to training and employment for community members (Clausen, Hoa Vu, & Pedrono, 2011; Kirchhoff, 2006). However, EIA recommendations often do not go far enough for building meaningful community participation in conservation and management decision-making processes (Diduck, Pratap, Sinclair, & Deane, 2013). Communities will often employ bridging organizations (e.g., NRM consultancies and/or research firms) and/or individuals (e.g., consultants or academics) that provide services (policy research, briefings, etc.) and enhance the capacity of communities to participate in conservation and NRM governance processes. Bridging organizations translate and transmit different kinds of knowledge and can initiate directives and/or facilitate between different levels and spheres in governance (Berkes, 2009; Folke, Hahn, Olsson, & Norberg, 2005). They have been credited as being important for creating pathways for community participation and enhanced capacity ⁴ (Berkes, 2009); however, they do not represent an ideal in mutually autonomous decision making in which parties are transmitting values and knowledge as they would be heard in the community.

Learning and the “access approach”

Long-term community engagement in natural resources and environmental governance includes the ability to sustain community ability to navigate complex political landscapes, including environmental, economic, and social policy. This long-term focus is connected to the intergenerational components of communities, which has been found to strongly connect to sustainability of both large- and small-scale natural resources management projects (Zurba & Trimble, 2014). Knowledge about the importance of the intergenerational components of governance is also reflected in the development of new working groups within leading supranational organizations (IUCN IPS, 2015). Communities, scholars, working groups, states, and proponents acknowledge that there is an important learning component that must be addressed if communities are to be engaged in long-term and meaningful governance processes (Walker, Sinclair, & Spaling, 2014; Zurba & Trimble, 2014). Learning about natural resources and environmental governance is essential to development of community knowledge around natural resources and environmental policy and practice (Cundhill & Rodela, 2012) and is important for building adaptive capacity within natural and governance systems (Armitage, Berkes, Dale, Kocho-Schellenberg, & Patton, 2011).

Formal education in environmental, economic, and social policy is an important part of what is needed for local and Indigenous communities to act as agents fully in control of how they choose to engage in governance. Because of their function and distribution, universities have the ability to play a key service role in developing such educational programs. For over 45 years, universities have been transitioning towards being more inclusive (i.e., less elitist), more interdisciplinary, and focused on developing programs that meet the needs of the communities, both regionally and globally (Reay, Ball, & David, 2002). “Access programs,” in particular, are increasingly becoming part of the university landscape and are designed to fill gaps in tertiary education through supporting underrepresented populations in obtaining specialized training and qualifications through the attainment of university degrees. Access programs are designed to support students through coursework and practicums, employing pedagogy directed towards teaching students how to succeed as students and in their professional programs. The “access approach” provides a special network of support for students who might be alienated by educations systems that have historically been strongly tethered to colonization (Battiste, Bell, & Findlay, 2002).

Access streams at universities may have a broad focus towards supporting Indigenous education in a variety of programs. For example, the Badanami Centre for Indigenous Education at Western Sydney University in Australia offers “a supportive and culturally appropriate learning environment that caters to the needs of [our] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students” (Western Sydney University, 2016). Other types of access programs focus on specific professions and offer degrees in community service professions such as nursing, midwifery, and teaching for primary and secondary education. Some universities also offer access programs for professions such as engineering and law. For example, the Engineering Access Program at University of Manitoba is designed to provide Indigenous students “access to university studies leading to a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering” and create access for those “who may not meet the normal entrance requirements for engineering” (University of Manitoba, 2016). Another example is the Māori Health Workforce Development Unit at the University of Otago, which “works to increase the number of Māori entering into the University of Otago’s health sciences professional and degree programmes—and strives for successful degree completion and academic excellence” (University of Otago, 2016).

There are currently few university programs specifically geared towards enhancing professional standards for communities involved in environmental, economic, and social policy. Some rural universities are more aware of and better equipped to meet local or regional community needs and have programs that are specifically developed towards sectors (e.g., forestry ⁵ ) and fields (e.g., community development, ⁶ natural resources management ⁷ ) and include policy education. Such programs, as well as the well-established access programs (mentioned above) could serve as the best examples to look to for access streams in environmental, economic, and social policy. Core courses in environmental studies and community development would be logical components of the curriculum in this stream. Policy-focused curriculum and other requirements could be developed according to regional contexts. Institutional partnerships would also be important for developing programming that is designed to meet the real-world challenges that come with researching and responding to different forms of policy. Institutional partnerships could take shape as educational program advisory boards including members from community organizations and the university. Partnerships through boards could also provide information for developing a strong regional focus, as well as program attributes that work towards enhancing decolonizing approaches and enhanced sovereignty.

Some access programs are already working against colonial marginalization of Indigenous peoples by involving communities in programming and curriculum, and employing resident elders to provide guidance and support. This type of participatory and integrative approach tackles social exclusion that is often experienced by marginalized groups in educational settings (Hayton, 1999). There is also a small but increasing awareness of the importance of experiential learning, as well as awareness that the educational setting needs to shift from the classroom to the community and/or educational settings that relate to the topics being studied (e.g., spending time in a forest when learning about forest policy). Experiential learning provides opportunities to learn through concrete experiences that can help to conceptualize and add texture and personal meaning to abstract concepts (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). One example is a program at the Community Aboriginal Teacher Education Program at the University of Winnipeg, which includes land-based education where students spend time connecting directly to Indigenous knowledge through elders and practices on the land.

Communities hold knowledge relating to local environments and have intergenerational (peer-to-peer, elder-to-youth, nature-to-individual) modes for transmitting such knowledge towards long-term planning (Islam, Zurba, Rogalski, & Berkes, 2016). Traditional knowledge (a.k.a., traditional ecological knowledge, local knowledge, Aboriginal traditional knowledge) is an adaptive knowledge system that is passed down through the generations from one knowledge keeper to the next (Armitage et al., 2011; Folke, 2004). It acknowledges the relationship between people and the environment and has proven to be valuable in developing sustainable management systems for natural resources and the environment (Raymond et al., 2010). Traditional knowledge has been successfully woven into programs (including education) that are geared towards systems-level problem solving, such as training relating to ecosystems management (Berkes, Berkes, & Fast, 2007; Wall Kimmerer, 2002). Through formal policy education, the traditional knowledge that communities hold could be more directly transmitted, with reduced need for the use of boundary organizations.

Several universities are well positioned to play an important role in contributing to filling the education and policy gap. Access education in environmental, economic, and social policy would support governance activities such as (but not limited to): conducting research, knowledge transmission into policy and protocol development, and communications with other parties within a governance system (Lane, 2007). As is the case in educational programs geared towards practitioners, it is also essential that employment and career pathways are clearly defined and readily communicated to participating communities and students. Community-centered work (e.g., employment in community office) would be a main area for work, especially for communities involved in long-standing and on-going resource development. This, however, need not be the only avenue for employment. Boundary organizations would benefit from the inclusion of Indigenous and local knowledge, and through hiring local and Indigenous people would be contributing to the capacity of communities by employing members trained through such programs. The shaping of pathways for graduates would be a central component to community involvement in programs. Such involvement would not only increase the potential for meaningful community outcomes but could further strengthen intergenerational transmission through knowledge sharing and community visioning.

Conclusions and next steps

Access education is one way to address the need for capacity building for local and Indigenous participation in natural resources and environmental governance. The access approach to educational programming provides an appropriate framework for the developing of programming that is interdisciplinary, intergenerational, and makes use of decolonizing education principles. The key features of an access program in environmental, economic, and social policy would include community involvement and direction of program objectives, core courses covering policy, experiential learning, traditional knowledge, decolonizing pedagogy, and student resources and supports. Several universities are well positioned to develop access programming in natural resources and environmental governance, and could look to existing programs in access and regular streams (i.e., geared towards particular sectors and fields) that have laid the foundation for future innovations. Engaging communities will be an important first step for universities that could also lead by example through demonstrating the value and benefits of local and Indigenous participation in governance through the development of educational programming.