Federalism: Co-Management – A comparison of the Three Territories’ Co-Management Models with the Federal Government

By Catherine Waters, Director, Learning Design and Evaluation

September 10, 2025

The models of co-management in Nunavut, Northwest Territories (NWT), and Yukon reflect their distinctive Indigenous populations and demographics, their histories, and their cultures. The three models show how co-management has evolved from an essentially advisory function based on a model of institutionalized local consultation in Yukon, to a more mixed mosaic of different regional institutions in NWT, and finally to a legally-enforceable regulatory function in Nunavut. In this article, we take a look at how co-management models across the three territories are similar and how they differ.

Co-management in Nunavut and the NWT is a distinctive governance model that came out of modern land-claim agreements. It sets up arm’s-length “institutions of public government” where Indigenous organizations and federal and territorial governments share responsibility for land, water, wildlife, and environmental assessment. In practice, these boards make decisions or recommendations that governments normally implement, embedding Indigenous knowledge in regulatory processes, and giving Indigenous peoples structured, statutory influence over key policy arenas.

Co-management in the territories can be seen as a further evolution of Canada’s federal system. Traditionally, federalism meant dividing power between the federal government and the provinces or territories. Co-management goes a step further by embedding Indigenous governments and institutions into that structure.

These bodies collectively plan land use, assess project impacts, set wildlife harvest levels, and license water use across the entire Nunavut Settlement Area. Their mandates are grounded in the land-claim agreement, which makes them core instruments of public decision-making rather than advisory committees. There are three ways that Indigenous peoples have decision-making powers through co-management: the power of appointment of board members; the power of mandates; and the power of entrenching the place of Indigenous knowledge into the decision-making process.

In Nunavut, the Nunavut Agreement (previously called the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement) created a territory-wide centralized suite of boards with decision-making powers: Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB), Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC), Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), Nunavut Water Board (NWB), and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal.

In the NWT, co-management is organized primarily through the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA) and several settled regional land claims (Gwich’in, Sahtu, Tłı̨chǫ) as well as the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) in the western Arctic. Indigenous governments nominate members to these boards, which regulate permits, licenses, and impact reviews throughout much of the territory.  In the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, co-management bodies like the Wildlife Management Advisory Councils and the Fisheries Joint Management Committee work alongside the Inuvialuit Game Council, with balanced representation from Inuvialuit and governments and an explicit commitment to weigh Indigenous and scientific knowledge equally.

The two territories are organized very differently. Nunavut makes land, water, and wildlife decisions at the territory-wide level because it is governed under one comprehensive land claim, the Nunavut Agreement. The NWT, on the other hand, uses a regional system: each region with a land claim helps run its own land and water boards, and the Inuvialuit region has its own co-management system. This setup gives more room for local priorities but also makes the NWT’s system more complex.

Another big difference is that in 2014 the NWT gained control (devolution) over most onshore land and water management from Canada, while Nunavut has not yet done the same.  Devolution matters because it puts decision-making power over land management of Crown lands in the hands of territorial governments, which strengthens co-management by making it more local, responsive, and collaborative with Indigenous governments.

Interestingly, Yukon’s system of co-management, though more in line with the NWT model, is distinctively its own, reflecting the earlier agreements reached, including the devolution agreement implemented in 2003.  Yukon, Canada, and Council for Yukon Indians agreed the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA) in 1993, which provided for Renewable Resources Councils (RRCs) for local resource management.  These local councils are community-based bodies, with half the nominations from the Yukon First Nation and half from government.  Their mandate is decentralized and regional, focusing on fish, wildlife, habitat and land use.  Interestingly, their powers are limited to a local advisory function, rather than a legally enforceable regulatory function.  At the territorial level, there are boards and councils that offer more strategic advice.

These differences show how the territories’ institutions for co-management reflect distinctive Indigenous populations and cultures, historical trends and ideas, and a greater focus on partnership and co-creation of policy.