Creative Conservation: New Paradigms of Biodiversity Management in the Canadian Arctic

By Max Sugarman
Abstract This chapter argues that biodiversity conservation matters to Arctic security, defining a broader understanding of security that aims for local empowerment, human security, and environmental security. After asserting the critical importance of biodiversity for security through ecosystem services, we explain the threats to biodiversity in the current context of climate change. As a response to these threats to environmental security, a wide range of solutions is being developed. Currently international conventions set a standard for biodiversity conservation. At the local and regional level in the Canadian Arctic, biodiversity is managed through the merger of biological science and traditional Inuit knowledge. Harvested species are managed with schemes of co-management, while ecosystems are managed with consultative and planning processes. As climate change continues to alter the Arctic, biodiversity must be managed creatively and integrated between scientific and indigenous schools of thought at multiple levels to successfully adapt to a changing climate. Recent ideas for stronger international frameworks, inclusion of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, citizen science, and ecosystem services provide a creative direction for biodiversity management.

Introduction Biodiversity, the diversity of all living things and ecosystems, is a crucial aspect of environmentali and human security. Ecosystem services that stem from biodiversity play a fundamental role in the functioning of the Arctic environment and Arctic societies. As climate change and globalization threaten biodiversity, new paradigms of conservation are necessary. In this paper we will clarify the historic and current biodiversity management strategies. This paper starts with international frameworks for encouraging biodiversity, and then follows with clarification of the role of population management and ecosystem based management currently in the face of the dichotomy of indigenous knowledge and non-indigenous science. Finally opportunities for integrating these two different approaches are offered to bring about a new paradigm for conservation. Traditionally, conservation has been entrusted with biological science. Conservation began out of the demands of hunters like Theodore Roosevelt who sought to maintain populations of species. From this demographic focus, conservation has grown to a broader goal of maintaining the rich biodiversity at the genetic, species, or ecosystem level in perpetuity (Noss, 1990, 355). Conservation methods have historically focused on population statistics, seeking a stable population of a species below its carrying capacity.

Conservation practices at the species level include monitoring, culling, and ex-situ (captive or off-site) conservation. At a broader scale, conservation science has called for protected areas of land and water. In the face of climate change, an ecosystem-based approach involving management of non-protected lands, and partnerships between government, landowners, and private citizens has become more prominent. Finally, conservation has enlisted international action through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and non-governmental organizations like the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). However in recent decades, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and more indigenous concepts of knowing the natural world have been recognized and incorporated. In the Canadian Arctic, the Inuit have been strong proponents of TEK, especially for the monitoring of species populations (Wenzel, 2004, p. 254; Aglukkaq, 2013). TEK informs different methods of conservation such as population monitoring, but often provides alternative observations. At regional, national, and international forums, the Inuit have called for inclusion of their voice and knowledge in conservation practices. While TEK has many opportunities, the concept itself has many layers, especially with introduction of the broader Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ)ii, or the full aspects Inuit understandings of the world. Despite decades of collaboration, Inuit knowledge and science have potential to clash. Over the past decade as research and conservation have focused on the North, conflicts have been noted (The Communities, 2005; Berkes et al., 2007; Tyrrell, 2008). A general call for consultation between science and indigenous communities requires clarification. Despite a strong pattern of collaboration, the conflicts between Inuit understandings and non-indigenous science have increased as biodiversity becomes more threatened. Looking particularly at Nunavik can provide a glimpse at the possible resolutions of divergent viewpoints between science and TEK in both planning and practice. The central question is: how can Arctic biodiversity be conserved despite external threats and in the face of dissenting tactics of conservation? Ultimately, biodiversity must be managed creatively and integrated at multiple levels to successfully adapt to a changing climate. Biodiversity at Risk Arctic biodiversity is deeply threatened by global and external forces of climate change and globalization. While not traditionally associated with security, biodiversity is relevant to security on both environmental and human levels. The main connection of biodiversity to security is through the need to secure the ecosystem services that biodiversity provides (Trombotta, 2009, p. 599). Ecosystem services are the variety of provisions, culture, and regulatory systems that maintain the stability of ecological and human communities. In the Arctic these services include important ecosystem regulation like the role of mosquitoes in nutrient cycling or direct provisions of consumption goods

like Arctic char fisheries (A. Shestakov, personal communication). More subtle ecosystem services include the social bonds and knowledge transfer from harvesting wildlife or the spiritual values of ecosystems (L. Ellsworth, personal communication). First, these services help keep the ecosystem functioning and stable. Additionally these ecosystem services contribute to the security of the human community by facilitating health, social interaction, and community stability. These examples of ecosystem services support the argument that biodiversity is linked to security (Djoghlof, 2011). Along with a security component for communities, there is a strong tendency toward inequality in the impacts of environmental insecurity (Diaz et al. 2006). Besides the security provided for ecosystems and human communities through biodiversity, some people hold an intrinsic value in the biological diversity of organisms, including many indigenous, Qubecois, and Canadians (Gouvernment du Qubec, 2011, p. 98). The valuable biodiversity in the Arctic is highly threatened by external forces from climate change and globalization. The Unikkaaqatigiit report shares the observed changes to wildlife and fisheries from climate change according to Nunaviks Inuit (The Communities, 2005). These changes include shifts in Beluga whale migrations, new bird species, and changes in fish species and runs (The Communities, 2005). Along with alterations to wildlife patterns and species diversity, ecosystems are changing dramatically with sea ice loss and lake disappearance (CAFF, 2010, p. 69). These changes to the ecosystem are leading to stressed or declined populations of harvested species such as caribou (CAFF, 2010, p. 29). Besides climate change, there are increasing threats of chemical pollution and invasive species that harm biodiversity (Johnsen et al., 2010, p. 8). As biodiversity is lost to the forces of climate change, the security of Arctic communities is threatened. While new species may be appearing, the overwhelming observations of biodiversity reactions to climate change point to a sharp decline in biodiversity outweighing any benefits of new species or ecosystem services (The Communities, 2005, P17). Defending the biodiversity of the Arctic will strengthen the resilience of Arctic ecosystems (Chapin III et al., 2006, p. 198). The biodiversity of the Arctic also confers resilience to human communities through ecosystem services (Djoghlof, 2011, p. 15). As many as 279 migratory species of birds may be harmed by severe changes in the Arctic; this presents a security threat to countries beyond the Arctic (CAFF, 2010, p. 8). Not only are food sources disappearing, causing a nutrition deficiency for Inuit populations, but also increases in algae density has lowered the quality of water for drinking showing the comprehensive health risks to human populations from biodiversity loss (Knostch and Lamouche, 2010, p. 10, 33). Biodiversity destabilizes other aspects of human well-being. In the Arctic, linguistic diversity has declined in correlation with biodiversity decline, suggesting strong links between biodiversity and cultural resilience (Knotsch and Lamouche, 2010, p. 9; CAFF, 2010, p. 99). Through the impacts on ecosystem resilience, human health, and even culture, biodiversity loss has real implications on human security.

Framed within the debate between indigenous and scientific management, climate change elevates the pertinence of biodiversity management. Increasingly, dramatic changes to ecosystems are causes of urgent concern. These small crises are quickly becoming the norm, and with each ecological crisis, conflict may arise between indigenous communities and science. For example, science may call for conservation of a species at risk, while indigenous communities may seek to continue traditional hunting practices. As climate change continues to shape the Arctic, a new path must be forged that shifts conservation from a crux of conflict to a cavalry of collaboration. International Frameworks The Underpinnings of Conservation International frameworks at a global, regional, and indigenous mindset lay a foundation for the protection of biodiversity. Not only do the dangers to the Arctics biodiversity affect the region, but have wide ranging global consequences and responsibilities. During discussions of the CBD, the southern African country of Malawi even noted its concern for Arctic biodiversity as important bird species migrate thousands of kilometers between the Arctic and Africa (Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, 2011, p. 3; A. Shestakov, personal communication, 2013). These international frameworks encourage change at national and local levels. By clearly defining biodiversity and setting a broad, yet clear set of goals for conservation, the CBD serves as a standard for biodiversity conservation (Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992). For instance the CBD has elevated awareness of biodiversity as a global issue, with more governments explicitly recognizing the value of biodiversity (Balmford et al., 2005, p. 212). Likewise, the CBD calls for the protection of customs that are in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation showing the global interest in integrating indigenous values (Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, art. 10c) Despite the value of a global agreement, the continued threats of biodiversity loss signify the failure of the CBD as a policy instrument, even according to its current head Ahmed Djoghlof (Zeller, 2010). The failure of the convention can be attributed to the absence of important signatories like the United States (Snape, 2010, p. 6). Nevertheless, a comprehensive international regime is necessary for a transnational problem like biodiversity loss (Trombetta, 2009, p. 598; A. Shestakov, personal communication, 2013). Some models exist at a more regional level and incorporate indigenous perspectives directly. Most prominently, the Arctic Council (AC) supports a working group called the Conservation for Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) with representatives from the nation states and indigenous permanent participants. In fact, biodiversity management motivated the creation of the Arctic Council seeing the need for full state and indigenous involvement to protect a vulnerable environment (McIver, 1998, p. 149; Arctic Council, 1996, par. 4). Even

earlier, the multi-state Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) produced an Inuit Regional Conservation Strategy (IRCS), serving as an indigenous management model as the first indigenous and first regional conservation strategy (Nuttall, 1998, p. 30). This strategy was credited with United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) awards serving as a globally recognized model for indigenous governance (Nuttall, 1998, p. 30). These models provide the basis for a comprehensive and effective conservation strategy. In particular, the voice of the Inuit offers a setting for a fresh and collaborative approach to conservation. The Harvest Co-Managing the Populations of Species While international responses have offered broad-scale collaboration between scientific and indigenous communities, substantive work has been done in local communities. Historically and presently, biodiversity has been cooperatively managed between scientists and indigenous communities through the conservation of specific populations. Nunavik and Nunavut provide several examples of collaborative efforts to maintain biodiversity of species for consumptive ecosystem services, in particular harvesting a key component of Inuit society. Nunavik in particular serves as a model for balance between science and indigenous knowledge with harvest limits, monitoring, and research, supported by an extensive scholarly discourse (Lewis et al., 2009, p. 14; Kishigami, 2005, p. 125). However, as climate change has altered populations, disagreement between indigenous and scientific conservation methods has been observed. To ensure the sustained and cooperative conservation of important species, an integrated approach is suggested that can limit potential weaknesses caused by dispute. Applications of non-indigenous biology and indigenous knowledge align with the conservation of populations. Populations are the groups of individuals of the same species living in a particular geographic area, and are the primary currency and concern of conservation biology (Freeman, 2011, p. 4; Van Dyke, 2008, p. 240). Most scientists gain expertise in individual species, matching each species to specific ecological needs. Just as species are ecologically unique, their purpose in the Inuit diet is species-specific (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, n.d.). Harvested species are managed through limits on harvest; these numbers are based off counts of species. Governance of harvesting can include IQ through co-management boards and community-based conservation. In Nunavik, managers attempt to include indigenous perspectives to manage these populations, but distinct disagreements have existed on species counts and definitions of sustainable harvests (Kishigami, 2005, p. 137). Quotas and moratoriums have been central policies for managing populations of harvested species in the Arctic, but have not been fully embraced by Inuit harvesters. Since the 1980s, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has instituted quotas and other

regulations on the harvest of beluga whales in Nunavik and Hudson Bay (Kishigami, 2005, p. 125; Tyrrell, 2008, p. 323). These management strategies include quotas, or limits on the number of whales harvested, date selection for the hunting season, training for newer hunters, regulations on hunting methods, and codes of conduct (Tyrrell, 2007). In 1996, after concerns over the two endangered populations of belugas in the Eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay in Qubec, the DFO placed a blanket quota of 240 for all three beluga populations in the Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay (Tyrrell, 2008, p. 325). However, Western Hudson Bay had 57,000 individuals compared to 3,100 individuals in Eastern Hudson Bay. This left the Inuit in Nunavik with a frustrating limit, considering the sharp difference in population numbers. Another challenge with the quota system was the application of the same quota numbers to different communities in Nunavik, despite varied community size. Nunavik communities began to resent the DFO (Kishigami, 2005, p. 130). In certain cases the unequal quotas have forced Nunavimmiut to purchase Beluga meat from Nunavut where management and quotas are less restrictive, or travel far distances to James Bay to harvest beluga (Tyrrell, 2007; Nunatsiaq News, 2012). The forced purchase of a typically subsistence good instills a sense of powerlessness in Inuit communities, weakening the social community strength offered through harvest (Tyrrell, 2007, p. 575). The application of these scientifically rooted policies may not be wholly appropriate for Arctic biodiversity management. Even more drastic have been moratoriums on hunts, suggested by scientists for biological reasons, but in contrast to Inuit ways of thought. In the 1990s, the DFO mandated closures of estuaries to human activities that continue today to protect vulnerable populations of Beluga whales in Eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay (Doniol-Vacruze et al., 2012, p. 7; Nunatisiaq News, 2012). These scientifically pressed moratoriums have strong ecological backing as the harvest of belugas in their calving areas of estuaries has been noted to affect beluga ability to remember habitats (Doniol-Vacruze et al., 2012, p. 5). While this drastic management step was seen as highly necessary for the DFO to protect biodiversity, the agency even admits the strong disagreements with local Inuit (DoniolVacruze et al., 2012, p. 5). These closures not only stop the harvest of beluga, but also limit the interactions of Inuit with the estuaries as recreational areas, or harvest zones for other species. By placing estuaries as sanctuaries of the Beluga, the Canadian government is perceived to prioritize wildlife over the Inuit people (Armitage, 2005, p. 721). Even though there is a strong scientific backing for the methods imposed by the DFO, indigenous knowledge is not incorporated meaningfully into these decisions (Doniol-Vacruze et al, 2012). Instead, harvesters prescribe to IQ and harvesters claim that beluga will return if hunted (Doniol-Vacruze et al, 2012, p. 5; Kishigami, 2005, p. 132). While harvesters may disagree with the fundamental behavioral ecology of the beluga whales, the DFO struggles to effectively convey this scientific knowledge to indigenous understandings of the environment.

Population monitoring has been another challenge of wildlife management between indigenous and scientific parties. For beluga whales, there has been substantial controversy over the validity of satellite telemetryiii counts (Lewis et al., 2009, p. 14; Kishigami, 2005, p. 133). Likewise, scientists consider the polar bear population verging on endangerment, yet Inuit communities sense an increase in polar bear numbers (MacDonald, 2012, p. 3). This discrepancy can be accounted for by the shrinking of sea ice forcing polar bears to forage in community waste to obtain energy, but this concept has not been appropriately conveyed to Inuit communities. These differences in population counts develop an increasing clash between indigenous and scientific priorities. Climate change is increasing the likelihood of these disagreements and as populations shrink the importance of accurate counting is amplified. Another form of co-management is through management boards such as the Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Co-ordinating Committee in Nunavik. Importantly these boards establish the leadership of Inuit in their own biodiversity management as leaders who draft regulations (Berkes et al., 2007, p. 150). Placing Inuit in management bodies supports efforts to include Inuit knowledge in the management process. While the concept of Inuit inclusion is ideal, the adaptiveness and effectiveness of this inclusion becomes difficult when the body increases participant numbers (Peters, 2002, p. 682). Meanwhile, limitations on the human capacity and scientific knowledge of members of the committee inhibit the effectiveness of the committee. Armitage suggests that the committees are too complex, and one option is for a simpler co-management system with fewer formal actors involved (Armitage, 2005, p. 726; Kishigami, 2005, p. 135). Nunavuts first integrated management plan for narwhals offers an alternative approach within the needs of wildlife management. After consultations with indigenous groups and organizations like the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the DFO set limits based on specific geographic regions, rather than the blanket quotas over the oceanic space. These zones can track each specific animal, keeping in line with the CITES requirements for the harvest and trade of narwhals (George, 2012). Each zone has different quotas adapted to regional differences in population and community demand, fitting a community-based management model (Dawson, 2013). This new effort more effectively includes IQ, by raising the quotas based on human needs in the ecosystem. Moreover, the more specific tracking makes this system more effective by addressing the actual concern of narwhal parts trade, rather than trying to control population numbers. Institutions and policies in place to protect harvested populations inappropriately apply non-indigenous concepts onto communities that lack the capacity to fulfill the roles required. Likewise, scientists struggle with a perception of illegitimacy from disputed

population counts. An integrated approach of human capacity building can improve the existing model, ensuring a positive collaboration. Land, Water, and Ice Can We Conserve the Entire Landscape? Beyond populations of species, the current approach to biodiversity conservation is an ecosystem-based management. Instead of simply managing a species, scientists and communities are encouraged to plan conservation for the entire system. Entire ecosystems work as a whole to provide important regulating ecosystem services services that provide resilience against ecological crisis. First the shifting effects of climate change call for ecologically conscious management of the broader landscape, not merely discrete areas (Heller and Zavaleta, 2009, p. 27). Second, an ecosystem approach includes indigenous voices and knowledge into management decisions because communities become intertwined with the conservation (Berkes et al., 2000, 1260). The ecosystem-based management (EBM) approach is highly regarded, and Canada is highlighted as a model for EBM (Slocombe, 1998, p. 34). EBM attempts to (1) treat the ecosystem as a unit, (2) practice adaptive management, and (3) involve stakeholder participation (Van Dyke, 2008, p. 350). While population management is easy to discretely focus on species and ignore human aspects, EBM must involve local actors, aligning with indigenous interests. Currently, co-management presents an opportunity to integrate indigenous and scientific conservation. Recently the George River caribou herd in Qubec saw a dramatic decline from 300,000 individuals to only 27,000 in a few years (Wells, 2013). To deal with this significant shift, a co-management response was developed. Four tribes and several biologists from the Qubec government worked together to manage the caribou population (CBC News, 2013). The migratory nature of caribou herds makes them a strong model for EBM because their migratory route must be wholly conserved (Slocombe, 1993, p. 615). Biologists have called for an adaptive management for caribou that includes the conservation of other associated species, sustainable forestry, and protected migratory corridors (Courtois et al., 2004, p. 605). In the Western Arctic indigenous communities participate in mapping the routes of caribou providing nuances of herd dynamics more accurately than a typical scientific approach (Kendrick and Manseau, 2008, p. 407). Other narrative forms of research are challenging to interpret, but reflect a range of local variability in observations and reflect the range of natural history observations and environmental history of the ranges (Kendrick and Manseau, 2008, p. 416). Inclusion of this TEK not only brings in improved understandings of the ecosystem but grants respect and dignity to the indigenous Inuit who often sense disengagement with government-led conservation. This follows suggestions for the incorporation of TEK into management

throughout Nunavik (Gislason, 2007, p. 102). Ultimately, regional co-management panels like the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Management Board, which practices landscapescale management, may be pathways towards an effective inclusion of indigenous ways of thought and voice in EBM (Gislason, 2007). This sort of forum not only can strengthen management, but can also empower Inuit communities. Currently, community consultations serve as the main way to make determinations of conservation decisions. According to the Makivik Corporationiv, through Plan Nunavik, new leaders are required to show up, and a round table of core leaders, local leaders and the public attend consultation meetings (J. Salvo, personal communication, 2013). These consultative efforts are consistently recommended throughout the literature (Berkes et al., 2007, p. 150; Johnsen et al., 2010, p. 75; Mallory et al., 2006, p. 23). While consultation is considerate of local concerns, it is crucial that these concerns are not only heard, but incorporated into management decisions. At the regional level, Nunavik and Qubec have prepared to protect biodiversity. Both indigenous people and Qubecers want to protect biodiversity (Gouvernment du Qubec, 2011, p. 94; Makivik, 2012, p. 333). In response to biodiversity loss, both Qubec and Nunavik have presented similar plans, although there are disagreements in the details of the change. Plan Nord, Qubecs Arctic Policy, notably calls for the protection of fifty percent of land north of the 55th parallel (Gouvernment du Qubec, 2011, p. 142). Although Plan Nord is no longer in place with the change in government, the ideas and sentiments remain, and the new Parti Qubecois government still seeks to protect at least fifty percent of land in the North from industrial development (Blatchford, 2012). This concept is impressive and attractive, but there are substantial critiques. Plan Nunavik, the Inuit response to Plan Nord, still seeks the same amount of protected lands, but the emphasis first is placed on human interactions with the ecosystem instead of bold claims of environmentalism. One of the key facets of Plan Nunaviks response to biodiversity loss is the need for consultation for protected area designations, bringing Inuit to the forefront of these decisions (Makivik, 2012, p. 422). Other goals for biodiversity protection include the enforcement of existing wildlife regulations and expanded Inuit human capacity and expertise on wildlife management (Makivik, 2012, p. 419). Science calls for similar goals especially for the concept of a regional adaptive management strategy. This would support a broad-based ecosystem management that is aware of global change and incorporates indigenous voice appropriately (L. Fortier, personal communication, 2013). Ecosystem-based management is also applied in aquatic ecosystems, especially the vast marine ecosystems that surround Nunavik and are integral to the Arctic. Marine ecosystems as a whole face challenges with management, especially in the complex space of Arctic waters and ice. Marine protected areas are tools for conservation of aquatic regions

(Van Dyke, 2008, p. 333). These may range from pristine no-go zones, banning all access to fisheries, or more managed and used zones with multiple purposes (R. Sauve, personal communication). In the Alaskan arctic, a model has been proposed with indigenous support, placing a moratorium on all commercial fishing in the marine waters (Bennett, 2009). Instead, only traditional harvests are allowed (Bernton, 2009). 551 scientists have strongly urged Canada to place a moratorium on industrial fisheries, waiting for scientific research to show that the Arctic waters are sustainable and resilient (Boswell, 2012; Reeves et al., 2012, p. 460). Any broad moratorium would still enable Inuit to practice traditional hunting and social bonding through the harvest. (L. Fortier, personal communication, 2013). With proper consultation, this strategy may be ideal in the shortterm. Several scholars have called for marine protected areas because coverage in the Canadian arctic is fairly weak (CAFF, 2010, p. 98; Peacock et al., 2011, p. 337). However the process of forming a marine protected area has been lengthy and ineffective to some degree (Guenette and Alder, 2007). The DFO calls for marine protected areas that are selective. In addition, these protected areas would not be no-go zones, but managed areas (R. Sauve, personal communication). These managed areas allow for fishing, hunting, and shipping, but are protected from oil and gas development (Peacock et al., 2011, p. 337). To determine these specific areas for long-term marine protection, specific areas should be protected with a conservation purpose (R. Sauve, personal communication, 2013). These special areas can be chosen based on tools like Rapid Assessment of Circum-Arctic Ecosystem Resilience (RACER) locating areas of ecosystem resilience that can serve the broader bioregion (Christie and Sommerkorn, 2012, p. 5). Through all of these decisions, consultation with Inuit communities is necessary to form appropriate and meaningful boundaries that respect both cultural and ecological values. To achieve a faster establishment of these areas, Guenette and Alder call for a more devolved process (2007). This process will need to involve Inuit leaders who can help shape these areas and more quickly accomplish protection across their land as sought by Plan Nunavik. As the current popular approach, EBM is a strong foundation for biodiversity conservation. Conservation is a large-scale issue, and the management of entire ecosystems and landscapes tightly involves indigenous perspectives. Inclusion in management decisions, involvement in planning, and agenda-setting that aligns with goals for ecosystems, all show the strengths of the EBM approach to provide comprehensive environmental security. Creative Integration Forward-Thinking Approaches for Conservation

The great challenge is continuing the integration of indigenous knowledge and voice with non-indigenous science in the face of climate change. International collaboration offers one opportunity to preserve biodiversity. Several recent ideas can strengthen the current relationship between science and indigenous knowledge including Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, citizen science, and an ecosystem services framework. International Legal Proposals Before tackling management, international legal frameworks need considerable attention. International approaches to conservation still provide the basis for effective environmental security across the Arctic. Historically attempts to conserve biodiversity internationally have centered on global treaties (Trombetta, 2009, p. 597). However as countries have failed to meet their obligations for the CBD, other forums for conservation need to be discussed. The Arctic Council, notable for its involvement of indigenous peoples, and founded on the basis of international environmental protection, offers a model for cooperative biodiversity conservation (Metcalf, 2004, p. 116; Struzik, 2010). A stronger Arctic Council, possibly establishing a precautionary approach through a treaty, can set standards for environmental protection across Arctic states (Verhaag, 2003, p. 579). Democratizing Biodiversity Management Another possible model for conservation of specific species is to involve wildlife in economic pursuits such as tourism discussed in the previous chapter. Tourism commodifies the ecosystem services provided by wildlife, possibly bringing economic growth to Inuit communities. Some of these possibilities include wildlife viewing from cruise ships or vehicles, or trophy hunting. Polar bears have been suggested as a possible (albeit controversial) species for trophy hunting, supporting Inuit communities (Freeman and Wenzel, 2006). By creating a greater value for polar bears through a hunting program, hunters would then become part of the sustainable population conservation effort. A newer dynamic of indigenous knowledge, known as Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ), challenges the scholarly devised notion of TEK. Instead of providing basic knowledge of flora and fauna in ecosystems, IQ provides cultural, spiritual, and ecological knowledge without trying to fit a Western thought process, making it more meaningful to communities (Tester and Irniq, 2008, p. 55). Wenzel suggests that TEK is less relevant, and fails to integrate Inuit communities into the management process (2004). Instead, IQ, already part of Nunavuts Wildlife Act, can play a critical role in actually bringing indigenous knowledge and voice to the scientific forum (Tester and Irniq, 2008, p. 49). Leona Aglukkaq, rising chairwoman of the Arctic Council, even mentioned the concept of IQ in her recent speech on Canadas ascendancy to the Arctic Council chairmanship (2013). This philosophy holds currency in Inuit communities, and may be a more effective route for partnership.

Citizen science, or the inclusion of local Inuit in the scientific process of management, may provide an opportunity for integrating scientific and indigenous styles of biodiversity management (Ayles et al., 2007). Research is one critical component of citizen science. The Wemindji Protected Areas Project between Cree and biologists offers a framework for community science. This process involved workshops, semi-structured interviews, and participant observation to capture the greatest amount of local knowledge possible (Mulrennan et al., 2012, p. 249). This community based participatory research becomes a learning experience for scientists, and also Inuit who often are limited in educational opportunities because of their isolation. Together Inuit and scientists can set research agendas and help define how populations and ecosystems can be managed. There are already models for science engagement through the Nunavik Research Centre, making citizen science a real possibility for expansion (S. Hendrie, personal communication, 2013). Ecosystem services are the fundamental reason for protecting biodiversity. However research on the value of these services through natural capital still needs to be quantified to ensure that the value is clear (de Groot et al., 2010, p. 28). Research done by a variety of projects, like Unikkaaqatigiit, have clarified the role of ecosystem services in Inuit communities (The Communities, 2005). Placing ecosystem services within the market can then protect these services. In the short-term, the risk assessments of ecosystem services can contribute to Integrated Regional Impact Strategies, planning for the future of wildlife (L. Fortier, personal communication, 2013). Policy Options Implement and enforce existing international agreements (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity) and wildlife regulations Communicate the ecological science behind quota and moratorium regulations to communities Practice adaptive co-management focused on an ecosystem-based management Identify and expand marine protected areas in resilient spaces of special concern Recognize the value of IQ and consider the values of IQ in management decisions Improve long-term observations and monitoring by creating a new crop of citizen scientists through scientific engagement in Inuit communities Involve communities in setting research agendas based off models such as the Nunavik Research Centre Conclusion Both conservation biologists and indigenous harvesters offer vital perspectives in biodiversity management. Together these two powerful beacons of knowledge can shed light on the complex nature of Arctic ecosystems, both with specific wildlife populations,

and also with broader understandings of ecosystems. While these management proposals tackle adaptation at a micro scale, the issues of biodiversity are inherently global. Only with regional and international collaboration between nation-states and indigenous participants can biodiversity be meaningfully conserved. Biodiversity is a critical component of community resilience and conservation will secure biodiversity and its ecosystem services. As global carbon mitigation fades in promise, these adaptation methods for populations and ecosystems will provide the resilience to ecosystems and communities that can sustain Arctic communities.

References Aglukkaq, L. (2013). Canadas Second Chairmanship of the Arctic Council. Arctic Frontiers Conference. Troms, Norway. Arctic Council., & Canada. (1996). Declaration on the establishment of the Arctic Council (Ottawa, Canada, 1996). Ottawa: Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Aboriginal and Circumpolar Affairs Division. Armitage, D. R. (2005). Community-Based Narwhal Management in Nunavut, Canada: Change, Uncertainty, and Adaptation. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 715-731. Ayles, B. G., Bell, R., & Hoyt, A. (2007). Adaptive fisheries co-management in the western Canadian Arctic. Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration, Learning and Multi-Level Governance. Vancouver: UBC Press Balmford, A., Bennun, L., Brink, B.t., Cooper, D., Cote, I., Crane, P., Walther, B. A. (2005). The Convention on Biological Diversitys 2010 Target. Ecology, 307, 212-213. Bennett, J. (2009, August 22). Moratorium on fishing north of Alaska. (blog post). Retrieved from http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/08/22/moratorium-on-fishing-north-ofalaska/ Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications, 10, 5, 1251-1262. Berkes, F., Berkes, M. K., Fast, H. (2007). Collaborative Integrated Management in Canada's North: The Role of Local and Traditional Knowledge and Community-Based Monitoring. Coastal Management, 35:1, 143-162. Bernton, H. (2009, Feb. 5). Global warming spurs commercial fishing moratorium in U.S. Arctic. Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2008712029_arcticclosure6m.html Blatchford, A. (2012). Parti Qubecois will revamp Plan Nord if it wins election. The Canadian Press. Retrieved from http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/126140parti-Qubecois-will-revamp-plan-nord-if-it-wins-election Boswell, R. (2012, Apr. 22). Leaders urged to impose moratorium on industrial fishing in the Arctic. Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved from http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/national/6500093/story.html CAFF International Secretariat. (May 2010). Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010 Selected indicators of change. Akureyri, Iceland: Asperent Stell. CBC News. (2013 Jan. 19). Aboriginal groups meet about George River caribou. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundlandlabrador/story/2013/01/16/north-kuujjuaq-george-river-caribou.html Chapin III, F.S., Hoel, M., Carpenter, S. R., Lubchenco, J., Walker, B., Callaghan, T.V., Zimov, S.A. (2006). Building Resilience and Adaptation to Manage Arctic Change. A Journal of the Human Environment, 35, 4, 198-202. Christie, P., and Sommerkorn, M. (2012). RACER: Rapid Assessment of Circum-arctic Ecosystem Resilience, 2nd Ed. Ottawa, Canada: WWF Global Arctic Programme. Convention on Biological Diversity: Text and annexes. (1994). Chtelaine, Switzerland: Interim Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Dawson, S. (2013). Nunavut narwhal management plan aims for April 1 launch. Nunatsiaq Online. Retrieved from

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674nunavut_narwhal_manageme nt_plan_aims_for_april_1_launch/ de Groot, R., Fisher, B., and Christie, M. (2010). Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Daz S, Fargione J, Stuart Chapin F III, Tilman D. (2006). Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biology, 4, 8, 1300-1305. Djoghlaf, A. (2011). Biodiversity, Peace and Security. In A. Djoghlaf & F. Dodds (Eds.), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Insecurity (15-26). London: Earthscan. Donoil-Valcroze, T., Lesage, V., and Hammill, M. O. (2012). Management implications of closure of estuaries to hunting of beluga in Nunavik. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Mont Joli, Quebec: Maurice-Lamontagne Institute, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Gouvernment du Qubec. (2011). Building Northern Qubec Together: The Project of a Generation. Ministre des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune. Freeman, M. M. R., Wenzel, G. W. (Mar. 2006). The Nature and Significance of Polar Bear Conservation Hunting in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic, 59, 1, 21-30. Freeman, S. (2011). Biological Science. George, J. (2012). Nunavut narwhal plan proposes new management system. Nunatsiaq Online. Retrieved from http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674nunavut_narwhal_plan_prop oses_new_management_system/ Gislason, R. (2007). Beluga co-management; perspectives from Kuujjuarapik and Umiujaq, Nunavik. Proquest Dissertations and Theses. Gunette, S., Alder J. (2007): Lessons from Marine Protected Areas and Integrated Ocean Management Initiatives in Canada. Coastal Management, 35:1, 51-78 Heller, N. E., and E. S. Zavaleta. 2009. Biodiversity management In the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142: 1432. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, (n.d.). Arctic Wildlife. Retrieved from https://www.itk.ca/publication/arctic-wildlife Johnsen, K. I., Alfthan, B., Hislop, L., Skaalvik, J. F. (Eds). 2010. Protecting Arctic Biodiversity. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal. Birkeland, Norway: Birkeland Tykkeri AS. Kendrick, A., and Manseau, M. (2008). Representing Traditional Knowledge: Resource Managemetn and Inuit Knowledge of Barren-Ground Caribou. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 401-418. Kishigami, N. (2005). Co-Management of Beluga Whales in Nunavik (Arctic Qubec), Canada. Senri Ethnology Studies, 67, 121-144. Knotsch, C. and J. Lamouche. (2010). Arctic Biodiversity and Inuit Health. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organization. MacDonald, J. (2013). Besieged by bears. Up Here. Retrieved from http://www.uphere.ca/node/850 Makivik Corporation and Kativik Regional Government. (2012). Plan Nunavik. Westmount, Qubec: Avataq Cultural Institute. Mallory, M. L., Ogilvie, C., Gilchrist, H. G. (2006). A Review of the Northern Ecosystem

Initiative in Arctic Canada: Facilitating Arctic Ecosystem Research Through Traditional and Novel Approaches. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 113, 19-29. McIver, J. (December 07, 1997). Environmental Protection, Indigenous Rights and the Arctic Council: Rock, Paper, Scissors on the Ice?. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 10, 1, 147. Metcalf, C. (2004). Indigenous Rights and the Environment: Evolving International Law. Ottawa Law Review, 35, 101-140. Mulrennan, M., Mark, R., and Scott, C. H. (2012). Revamping community-based conservation through participatory research. The Canadian Geographer, 56, 2, 243-259. Noss, R. F., (1990). Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach. Conservation Biology, 4, 4, 355-364. Nuttall, M. (1998). Protecting the Arctic: Indigenous peoples and cultural survival . Amsterdam, Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers. Peacock, E., Derocher, A. E., Thiemann, G. W., and Stirling, I. (2011). Conservation and management of Canadas polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in a changing Arctic. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 89, 371-385. Peters, E. (2003). Organisational Design for Co-Management: Comparing Four Committees in Nunavik. Les Cahiers de droit, 44, 4, 667-690. Reeves, R., Rosa, C., George, J. C., Sheffield, G., and Moore, M. (2012). Implications of Arctic industrial growth and strategies to mitigate future vessel and fishing gear impacts on bowhead whales. Marine Policy, 36, 454-462. Slocombe, D. S. (1993). Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management. BioScience, 43, 9, 612-622. Slocombe, D. S. (1998). Lessons from experience with ecosystem-based management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 40, 31-39. Snape III, W. J. (2010). Joining The Convention On Biological Diversity: A Legal and Scientific Overview of Why the United States Must Wake Up. Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 3, 10, 6-47. Struzik, E. (2010). As the Far North Melts, Calls Grow for Arctic Treaty. Yale Environment 360. Retrieved from http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_the_far_north_melts_calls_grow_for_arctic_treaty/2 281/ Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice. (2011). Report of Working Group II. (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/15/L.1/Add.2). Montreal, Canada: Convention on
Biological Diversity.

Tester, F. J., and Irniq, P. (2008). Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit: Social History, Politics and the Practice of Resistance. Arctic, 61, 1, 48-61. The Communities of Ivujivik, Puvirnituq and Kangiqsujuaq, Furgal, C., Nickels, S., Kativik Regional Government Environment Department. (2005.) Unikkaaqatigiit: Putting the Human Face on Climate Change: Perspectives from Nunavik. Ottawa: Joint publication of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatimi, Nasivvik Centre for Inuit Health and Changing Environments at Universit Laval and the Ajunnginiq Centre at the National Aboriginal Health Organization. Trombetta, M. J. (2009). Environmental security and climate change: analyzing the discourse. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21, 4, 585-602.

Tyrrell, M. (2007). Sentient Beings and Wildlife Resources: Inuit, Beluga Whales and Management Regimes in the Canadian Arctic. Human Ecology, 35, 575-586. Tyrrell, M. (2008). Nunavik Inuit Perspectives on Beluga Whale Management in the Canadian Arctic. Human Organization, 67, 3, 322-334. Van Dyke, F. (2008.) Conservation Biology: Foundations, Concepts, Applications. Springer Science and Business Media. Verhaag, M. (2003). It Is Not Too Late: The Need for a Comprehensive International Treaty to Protect the Arctic Environment. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 15, 555-579. Wells, J. (2013, Jan. 2). In Decline, Caribou Face a Tough Winter in Canada. National Geographic NewsWatch. Retrieved from http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/02/george-river-caribou/ Wenzel, G. W. (2004). From TEK to IQ: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Inuit Cultural Ecology. Arctic Anthropology 41, 2, 238-250. Zeller, T. (2010, Jan. 31). Failed Efforts in Protecting Biodiversity. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/business/global/01green.html?pagewante d=1. Environmental security is defined as the maintenance of the local and the planetary biosphere as the essential support system on which all other human enterprise depend or the protection against vulnerability of ecological systems (Trombetta, 2008). ii Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is described simply as traditional Inuit knowledge, a concept that includes spiritual as well as factual knowledge, or even more conceptually as avaluqangittuq that which has no circle or border around it (Tester and Irniq, 2008, p.49). Essentially, IQ is an approach that is rooted in Inuit concepts of knowledge, rather than TEK which is framed within Western conceptions of science and epistemology. iii Satellite telemetry collects signals from marked beluga whales and extrapolates locations for the remaining individuals (Lewis et al., 2009, p. 16). iv Makivik Corporation is the organization formed after the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement to protect the rights, finances, and interests of the Inuit in Nunavik
i