Arctic Yearbook 2014 - Page 217

  217   model of independent oversight can best incentivize the government to comply with its own rules to meet long term Fund objectives. Figure 5: Proposed Fund Governance Structure with Supervisory Council With the deposit amount to the NWT’s Fund now decided, though still requiring legislation or regulation, the government of the NWT has important decisions to make regarding governance and transparency. Though the current Fund holding is modest at just over $500,000 (Wohlberg 2013), this is the perfect time to instill good governance to ensure the Fund’s long-term success. Once revenues begin accumulating, it is easy to lose sight of the Fund’s mission and objectives. Deposit and Withdrawal Rules – Cautionary Example of Alberta’s Heritage Fund If similar funds in Alberta and Alaska are compared to the NWT Heritage Fund, there are differences in operations, management, and transparency and oversight. Each box represents a regulatory standard, essential for promoting consistent use and safeguarding of resource revenues. Green represents the existence of regulation while the red boxes highlight regulatory gaps in fund governance. Alberta did not have strong deposit and withdrawal rules, making their contributions ad-hoc, depending on the government whims of the day (of note, as of 2013 they standardized their deposit rules going forward). Daitch, Schwann, Bauer, Dias & Fan Li