Co-Management of Wildlife & Fisheries in Nunatsiavut: Roles & Activities Explained

This section examines four distinct Arctic self-governance models: Greenland's constitutional self-government since 1979, Nunavut's creation in 1999, Labrador Inuit's 2005 Land Claims Agreement, and Sami governance within Norway's unitary state. Each model demonstrates how Arctic peoples balance indigenous self-determination with economic development. Common themes include the tension between wanting development and resisting change that threatens established privileges, the need for partnerships requiring companies to hire local beneficiaries, and the importance of separating politics from business operations. These models show how Arctic regions can leverage unique natural resources while maintaining cultural integrity through innovative governance structures.

Successful co-management arrangements exist across different jurisdictions, such as the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' arrangement with Montana state government. These cross-jurisdictional partnerships provide proven models that other regions can adapt, demonstrating that effective co-management is achievable through collaboration between tribal governments and state authorities.

The Arctic faces unprecedented regulatory transformation across multiple jurisdictions. Svalbard implements strict polar bear distance regulations (500m until June 1st, then 300m), defining disturbance broadly as any behavioral change, while limiting landing sites to specific coastline areas. Greenland's new tourism act requires two-thirds local ownership for tourism activities, with municipalities determining zonation systems including no-go zones and restricted areas. Nunavut completed its land claims devolution agreement, transferring land and resource control to the Inuit government, enabling funding for Inuit Conservation and Preservation Areas (ICPAs) with 13 new areas planned through 2030. Underwater noise mitigation programs protect walrus, narwhal, and beluga populations. Drone usage restrictions apply broadly due to endangered species protections, requiring research permits for all non-research filming. Local business owners actively advocate for their interests, with some communities resisting cruise ship presence due to fishing industry competition. Operators must navigate exemption schemes for remote areas lacking local infrastructure while managing relationships with local stakeholders who control concession areas for activities like polar bear viewing and helicopter operations.

Greenland and Ukraine represent parallel cases in contemporary international relations, each demonstrating how territories become focal points for great-power competition. Both are autonomous regions with complex relationships to larger states (Denmark for Greenland, Russia for Ukraine), both face pressure from external powers seeking greater influence, and both illustrate how sovereignty questions transcend simple political calculations to touch on identity and survival. Understanding one case provides analytical tools for understanding the other, revealing patterns in how external powers approach territorial disputes and how local populations respond to such pressures. This comparative framework helps identify universal principles governing territorial sovereignty and great-power competition in the modern era.

The Nunavut Agreement, the comprehensive land claim for the territory, requires that land use decisions be done jointly between government and Inuit in affected communities. For the King Galloped project, a local Advisory Committee was established to ensure community voice. The committee identified that exploration permits for iron ore were being issued around key harvesting sites, causing wildlife disturbance and making country food harvesting more difficult. The committee made the decision to refocus the project on protecting key harvesting sites, demonstrating how co-management allows Indigenous communities to have real influence over decisions affecting their lands.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007 and fully adopted by Canada in 2016. Bill C-15 implements UNDRIP by requiring the Canadian government to examine all existing and future legislation through the lens of Indigenous human rights, consult with Indigenous leadership to create action plans addressing systemic racism, and harmonize Canadian laws with international standards. This represents a framework for decolonizing Canadian law and policy. The declaration establishes basic human rights for Indigenous peoples and provides a mechanism for Indigenous communities to hold governments accountable for laws that conflict with their inherent rights.

UNDRIP is a General Assembly resolution, not a treaty, meaning it has no binding legal force in Canadian courts. Article 26 states that Indigenous peoples have the right to lands, territories, and resources they have traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired. In 2015, Canada reversed its previous position under the Harper government and signed onto this declaration. British Columbia then passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) in 2019, incorporating UNDRIP into provincial law, creating enforceable obligations for provincial legislation to align with UNDRIP principles.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was ratified by Canada in 2019, becoming domestic law. In 2021, Parliament passed the UNDRIP Act, legally compelling full implementation. The treaty grants indigenous peoples rights to lands, territories, and resources traditionally owned, occupied, or acquired. The speaker emphasizes this encompasses all of populated Canada, creating a constitutional crisis where a 5% minority gains special property rights over the entire nation.

Bill C-15 implements the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into Canadian domestic law, providing Indigenous peoples with legal tools to defend their human rights, self-determination, and sovereignty against ongoing systemic racism and genocide, while requiring Canada to bring all laws into compliance with UNDRIP's standards for Indigenous rights including the right to govern territories and resources.

UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) is a 36-page document that originated in Canada and was taken to the UN by a Canadian delegation. It became federal law under Justin Trudeau after the discovery of 215 bodies at the Kamloops Indian Residential School. British Columbia then made UNDRIP provincial law through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), passed unanimously by the BC legislature. This document establishes three key principles: all land back to Indigenous peoples, veto power over everything happening on those lands, and indefinite funding for any activities Indigenous peoples want to pursue. The landback movement is described as a communist movement opposed to private property and fee simple ownership, seeking to correct what supporters see as the historical wrong of colonialism. This movement is gaining traction with more Indigenous art appearing on sidewalks, land acknowledgements on new park signs, parking spaces reserved for Indigenous people, and special private rooms in hospitals only available to Indigenous people. The speaker argues that reconciliation is not being achieved but rather division is being created, pitting less than 4% of the population against all the rest.

Climate change is expected to improve fish yields in Arctic and subarctic regions through species distribution shifts and increased primary production, but realizing these benefits requires three key adaptations: institutional changes to handle shared resources and stakeholder conflicts, management adjustments including target species and reference points, and consumer education to embrace fish of the day; this highlights the importance of multilateral cooperation and adaptive governance in addressing global fisheries challenges.

Climate change fundamentally alters Arctic ecosystems through changing sea temperatures affecting marine ecosystems, ocean currents, and commercial fish stock distributions including North Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic cod, and herring. These changes require new approaches to international cooperation and joint management of shared resources. Effective management demands recognizing new biological realities based on best available science and adapting accordingly. Outdated management arrangements and economic sanctions prove ineffective approaches. Arctic nations can demonstrate leadership in resolving natural resource conflicts peacefully and respectfully. Strategic assessments provide deeper understanding of regional challenges and potentials for sustainable development.

Climate change is fundamentally transforming Arctic marine ecosystems, creating unprecedented challenges for wildlife populations. In 2019, unusual mortality events were declared for gray whales along the entire North American coast and for ice seals (bearded, ring, and spotted seals) with mortality rates five times above normal. These events demonstrate cascading impacts: reduced sea ice alters prey distribution and quality, forcing predators to expend more energy searching for food while consuming less nutritious prey. The conceptual model shows how earlier ice retreat and later advance reduce ice algal production while extending open water periods, potentially reversing the historical dominance of benthic over pelagic production. Cold-adapted species (walruses, gray whales, ice seals) face declining prey quality and quantity, while sub-Arctic species (killer whales, fin whales, humpback whales) and temperate fish (pollock, cod) expand their ranges northward. This reorganization threatens traditional subsistence practices while benefiting commercial fisheries, raising difficult questions about conservation priorities and ecosystem management in a rapidly changing Arctic.

Co-management creates mechanisms for coastal communities to participate in fisheries governance, but implementation varies dramatically across jurisdictions. Legal drafters must determine what co-management means in each specific legal and cultural context, considering existing institutions and budget requirements. Climate change is shifting fishery ranges toward the poles and altering migration patterns, requiring adaptive governance frameworks. Marine spatial planning provides mid-to-long term strategies, with Belgium demonstrating how stakeholder processes can evolve into detailed regulations. The BBNJ treaty negotiations highlight needed transboundary coordination. Pacific tuna fisheries show adaptive approaches including quota adjustments based on changing migratory patterns. Success requires new legal instruments and sustained commitment to balance immediate community needs with long-term sustainability objectives.

Arctic ecosystems face unprecedented threats from climate change. Svalbard hosts ~3,000 polar bears, while musk oxen were introduced to Norway in 1950. The Saimaa ringed seal became isolated in freshwater Lake Saimaa post-Ice Age, evolving into a distinct subspecies. Average Arctic winter temperatures have risen several degrees Celsius in 50 years. The primary threat to Saimaa ringed seals is reduced snowfall eliminating birth caves essential for pup survival. Conservationists manually construct artificial snow piles to compensate. Even with successful breeding seasons producing over 80 pups annually, 30-50% die in their first year. This case study demonstrates how climate-driven habitat alteration threatens specialized species adapted to specific environmental conditions.

Effective research in northern Indigenous communities requires systematic prioritization processes involving five-year workshops to identify research gaps and establish community-aligned priorities. Community-based monitoring builds local capacity for ongoing data collection, reducing reliance on expensive helicopter trips while supporting traditional knowledge systems. Knowledge sharing meetings bring results back for interpretation, with interim reports maintaining engagement through social media. Results delivery ideally occurs in person with co-presentation using plain language and visuals. Partnerships with local co-management boards increase research relevance and efficiency by preventing redundant efforts. Long-term sustainability depends on developing local research capacity so community members can conduct research rather than relying on external researchers, reducing ongoing travel requirements and creating lasting institutional knowledge. Remote research faces unique challenges primarily related to transportation costs and environmental impact, requiring solutions like extended community stays and improved internet connectivity. Graduate student support policies must account for increased living costs in northern communities. Increasing interest in science careers among northern youth is essential for building sustainable research capacity, connecting science education to traditional land-based practices.

Effective environmental monitoring in Indigenous communities requires participatory research methodologies that combine traditional knowledge with scientific approaches. The methodology involves community workshops, participatory mapping with elders and young hunters, structured questionnaires about hunting and eating habits, and comparative interviews between generations. This integrated approach enables communities to systematically document environmental changes while preserving and transmitting traditional ecological knowledge across generations.

Effective community-based environmental research requires co-design where local people participate from start to finish in all project phases. This approach combines Western scientific techniques (pitfall traps, camera traps, GPS) with indigenous methods (tracking, storytelling). The process evolved from initial feral animal exclusion fencing to expanded biodiversity surveys, demonstrating how projects naturally expand based on community needs and interests.

Community-based monitoring empowers Indigenous communities to collect environmental data while advancing self-determination and governance. Effective approaches require extensive relationship-building before formal research, selecting accessible field methods respecting community responsibilities, and enabling community members to lead research as principal investigators. Such partnerships build youth capacity, support higher education pathways, and gradually transfer research responsibilities to community members. These approaches demonstrate how scientific research can serve community priorities while developing local expertise in environmental stewardship.

Community-driven monitoring programs should be developed with input from local governments, indigenous communities, and research entities. Community concerns must be uplifted and integrated into monitoring plans. Regional monitoring programs can include multiple species of importance to communities such as seals, salmon, caribou, moose, and berries. The Indigenous Sentinels Network provides tools and resources for indigenous communities to conduct their own monitoring, including applications like Fish Map, Skipper Science, and Sentinel Science. The network addresses data sovereignty concerns by helping communities determine what data they should hold and how to share it, recognizing that some data may be culturally sensitive.