Arctic Yearbook 2015 - Page 122

122 Arctic Yearbook 2015 including the collection of resource revenues. It was followed by a devolution transfer agreement in 2003, which provided for the transfer of responsibilities for land, water, forest, and mineral resources. A similar agreement has just been signed in the Northwest Territories and has led to an update of the Yukon resource-sharing agreement to bring it into line with the NWT one. At this time, the Nunavut government is negotiating a similar devolution agreement but the talks had been stalled for many years and restarted just last year. These agreements empower the territories to manage the land and resources, although they have to share the resource revenues with the federal government according to a formula that allows the territory to keep 50% of the revenues, the other 50% being deducted from Territorial Formula Financing. The amount of money to be transferred is capped in order to keep the territories from becoming too wealthy (Irlbacher & Mills 2007). Land claim agreements have also impacted land and resource management because they recognize Aboriginal property rights over 5 to 20% of the claimed territory. In the most recent agreements, subsurface rights have also been recognized, although for very small tracts of land. Land and resource management has been affected the most by the co-management regime stemming from these agreements. These co-management regimes create boards that oversee wildlife, water, land, and resource management and impact assessment, and whose composition is usually 50% representatives of Aboriginal people and 50% representatives of the two levels of government (federal and territorial). In Yukon, the Umbrella Final Agreement has created a framework for the negotiation of land claim agreements by each Yukon First Nation. To date, 11 Yukon First Nations have signed land claim agreements. Surface rights and the environmental assessment process are dealt with by the Council of Yukon First Nations, thus bringing management of these issues to the territorial level. In the NWT, the recent land claims agreements (Gwich’in, Sahtu, and Tlicho) have put into place three land and water boards in the Mackenzie Valley. In addition, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board (MVLWB), under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA), coordinates management of these resources and covers those regions that are not yet under a land claim agreement. The Inuvialuit Settlement Region, which is located in the NWT, encompasses the Mackenzie River delta as well as the Arctic Islands, and has quite a different management structure. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement was signed in 1984, at a time when there was no established model for land claim agreements. Although it makes no provision for a non-renewable resource management board, such a role is played by the Inuvialuit Game Council. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) encompasses all of Nunavut, but three comanagement boards are responsible for land resources and make recommendations to the relevant minister: the Nunavut Planning Commission, the Nunavut Water Board, and the Nunavut Impact Review Board. A fourth body, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, is responsible for wildlife and is the only Nunavut board with decision-making powers. The land claims agreements have thus created multiple poles of governance (Loukacheva 2007; White 2009; McArthur 2009; Rodon 2014) with competing legitimacy and, according to some, a risk of Resource Development & Land Claims