CanNor exists to strengthen Northern economic development—yet its funding mix often asks private businesses to take the most risk with the least support. Here’s what should change, and what WABA is doing to help.
In the Western Arctic, we talk a lot about diversification, local capacity, and building a stronger private sector. But those outcomes don’t happen because we say we want them. They happen when the incentives are designed to make investment rational—for the people who actually take the risk.
That’s why this issue matters. CanNor exists to support Northern economic development, but the way support is structured can sometimes work against the very market outcomes we’re trying to grow. Too often, larger non-repayable contributions flow to nonprofits, while private businesses are more likely to be offered smaller, often repayable support—even though businesses are the actors expected to build durable economic activity.
We explored this more directly in a recent editorial on ArcticBusiness.ca. This post focuses on what WABA is doing about it:
Why CanNor’s Funding Strategy Defies Its Own Economic Logic
Nonprofits matter. They deliver services, build capacity, and fill gaps that business will not (and often should not) fill. In Northern communities, many social and community outcomes depend on strong nonprofit institutions.
But nonprofits are not designed to do the same job as businesses.
Nonprofits are built for mandate delivery and public accountability. They tend to be risk-averse for good reasons. Even innovative projects often remain pilots—valuable, but not always built to survive past the funding cycle.
Businesses live in the opposite reality. They survive only if they find customers, control costs, and adapt fast. When they succeed, the benefits compound: stable jobs, stronger local supply chains, deeper skills, and more tax revenue to support community priorities.
If we say we want market development, we need funding design that treats businesses as market builders—not as high-risk applicants who should accept the most exposure for the least flexible capital.
Northern entrepreneurs operate with high fixed costs, freight constraints, short seasons, and thinner margins. When public funding tools make business investment harder—through repayable structures, limited working capital, narrow eligibility, or slow decision timelines—it doesn’t “encourage discipline.” It often selects against participation.
The result is predictable: fewer businesses try new ideas, fewer local firms scale, fewer people bet their time and savings on building capacity, and communities become more dependent on outside providers.
Then we hear the familiar line: “There isn’t local capacity.” Sometimes that’s true. But sometimes it’s the outcome of years of incentives that made capacity harder to build.
WABA’s role is to work with partners to make the system function better—keeping the conversation constructive and turning the problem into practical fixes so businesses in the Western Arctic can compete, invest, and grow.
That starts with making it easier for decision-makers to see what local businesses can do. When buyers, partners, and funders can quickly validate capability, it reduces friction and makes “yes” easier.
It also means helping businesses show the investment-ready basics in a Northern-realistic way—clear service descriptions, past work highlights, capacity statements, and credible near-term plans. These aren’t glossy pitches. They’re practical signals that let partners and funders assess risk faster.
And it means getting the right people in the same room—funders, buyers, and businesses—to name what’s actually blocking investment, and to capture “what changes next” in writing. If the barriers are predictable, the fixes can be, too.
Finally, WABA will keep advocating for measurable improvements in how Northern economic development funding is structured and deployed—so we can track whether participation is increasing, timelines are improving, and outcomes are compounding over time.
If the goal is diversification and self-sustaining economic activity, funding design should reflect Northern realities and the economics of market-building. In practical terms, we support changes that move toward more non-repayable business capital where it matters most—early-stage market risk, equipment, commercialization, and first-customer development.
We also need the right tool for the right job: nonprofits funded for service delivery and capacity building; businesses funded to build markets and durable revenue.
Equally important is less friction and more clarity—simpler pathways, clearer eligibility, and decision timelines that match Northern operating windows. When decisions arrive after the season, the opportunity has already moved on.
And we should measure total-value outcomes: funding that strengthens local employment, skills, and supplier networks—not just activity during a grant period.
This is not about guaranteed wins or weaker standards. It’s about aligning incentives with the outcomes we say we want: investable businesses, repeatable revenue, and local capacity that lasts.
Economic development isn’t just funding — it’s incentive design. If we want stronger Northern markets, we need tools that make it rational to invest in the Western Arctic, and that distinguish clearly between funding for mandate delivery and funding for market-building. This conversation isn’t about reducing support for community institutions — it’s about stopping a pattern where businesses carry the most exposure while being asked to deliver the most durable economic outcomes.
If you’ve run into eligibility rules, timelines, repayable terms, or working-capital constraints that changed whether you applied or invested, share a real example with WABA—what happened, and what single change would have made participation realistic.
And if you’re a Western Arctic operator, keep your capability and past work easy to verify. The faster buyers and funders can understand what you do, the faster local capacity can be matched to real opportunities when they open.
