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