Tuesday, February 16

 11:00am - 12:30pm

Governance - the Planning Context

The role land use planning plays (past, present and future) in decision making and governance in the North.

Venue: Artist Studio

Moderator: Ian D Robertson MCIP RPP – Principal, Inukshuk Planning & Development Ltd.

Tuesday, February 16, 11:00 - 11:30

Northern Land Use Planning; the Past and the Promise

Download Presentation


The principles incorporated into regional land-use planning in the north had their antecedents in a Federal Government Green Paper produced more than thirty years ago. This document ambitiously spoke of the biosphere, sustainability, and incorporation of local populations into decision-making processes as key components of northern regional land-use planning.

Tuesday, February 16, 11:30 - 12:00

Exploring the Connection Between Nation Building and Land Use Planning

Download Presentation


More and more, there is a recognition of the need for a nation to nation relationship between indigenous nations and Canada. What does that mean in the context of land use planning? Land use planning asks us to consider how we will use the land and what we need to protect to ensure we thrive as nations, but it can also be a key component of nation building.

Tuesday, February 16, 12:00 - 12:30

Good Governance Means Good Balance

Download Presentation


Land use plans to date in the Yukon have failed to balance potentially conflicting interests and have come short of reflecting the values of the community as a whole. Lack of clarity of mandates, combined with inherent biases in the composition of planning teams and in applied methodologies, have consistently resulted in a strong conservation bias, creating regrettable community polarization and mistrust in the planning process.

This has negatively impacted those Yukoners relying on land-based resource industries who feel unrepresented by the process. The latest Dawson LUP marked a great improvement in community consultation over previous plans, yet the methodology remained inherently biased. For example, when ranking the ‘Crown Land’ scenario (no additional protection designation above existing rules and regulations), all natural values are given a nul ranking, therefore implying that these values are left vulnerable without additional levels of protection. This pro-conservation bias is subtle as it is embedded in the algorithm methodology; however it is erroneous. Moose, hiking and other natural values are very healthy AND protected by existing legislation affecting activities on Crown Land. To be trusted with an effective democratic process, planners are challenged with constructing a non-politically biased methodology, providing factual information into a political process, which will then result in policy decisions. Added clarity to the mandate of the planning teams is needed. Limitations of the planning process need to be acknowledged, as the values analyzed and the knowledge base are dynamic while the plans themselves tend to be fixed, static and assume predictability.

Subscribe to this RSS feed