Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) are an integral part of many Arctic Indigenous cultures and contribute to food security for communities from Greenland, across northern Canada and Alaska to Chukotka, Russia. Although the harvesting and stewardship practices of Indigenous peoples vary among regions and have shifted and adapted over time, central principles of respect for beluga and sharing of the harvest have remained steadfast. In addition to intra-community cooperation to harvest, process and use beluga whales, rapid environmental change in the Arctic has underscored the need for inter-regional communication as well as collaboration with scientists and managers to sustain beluga populations and their cultural and nutritional roles in Arctic communities. Our paper, written by the overlapping categories of researchers, hunters, and managers, first provides an overview of beluga hunting and collaborative research in seven regions of the Arctic (Greenland; Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, Nunavut, and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Canada; Alaska; and Chukotka). Then we present a more detailed case study of collaboration, examining a recent research and management project that utilizes co-production of knowledge to address the conservation of a depleted population of beluga in Nunavik, Canada. We conclude that sustaining traditional values, establishing collaborative management efforts, the equitable inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge, and respectful and meaningful collaborations among hunters, researchers and managers are essential to sustaining healthy beluga populations and the peoples who live with and depend upon them in a time of rapid social and environmental change.

Large areas of the Arctic remain poorly surveyed, creating biological knowledge gaps as scientists and managers grapple with issues of increasing resource extraction and climate change. We modelled spatiotemporal patterns in abundance for avian species in the low Arctic ecosystem near the community of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, from 2015 to 2017. We employed six habitat covariates, including terrain ruggedness and freshwater cover, and contrasted the influence of elevation with distance from coast, as well as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI; a proxy for vegetative productivity) with the normalized difference water index (NDWI; a proxy for vegetation water content). Our results most clearly show the importance of low elevation, large amounts of freshwater and high vegetative productivity for Arctic birds at relatively local scales (<1 km2). Although NDVI more consistently appeared in competitive models of abundance, NDWI was particularly important in predicting abundance for shorebirds, ducks, Tundra Swans (Cygnus columbianus) and Lapland Longspurs (Calcarius lapponicus), demonstrating that it may be a more influential habitat covariate than NDVI for species that frequent habitats with wet vegetation. We also documented apparent shifts in habitat between early and late summer for geese, which were more strongly associated with freshwater later in the season, likely due to the presence of flightless juveniles and moulting adults at that time. Our study illustrates a relatively easy to implement survey methodology for avian species, provides baseline information for an Arctic study area that had not previously been surveyed intensively, and includes species that are underrepresented in previous literature.

Community-based monitoring is a promising strategy for collaboratively documenting knowledge that has become increasingly widespread among Indigenous communities, institutions, and governments across the Arctic. In January 2012, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board launched the Community-Based Monitoring Network (CBMN) to document current Inuit harvesting practices using modern technology by engaging Inuit harvesters in Nunavut who hunt, fish, gather, and observe wildlife. We provide an overview of the CBMN and discuss the challenges and opportunities of integrating data gathered through the CBMN in co-management decision-making. The CBMN has resulted in the collection of 7225 wildlife harvest and 2623 observation records by 85 harvesters in seven communities during 5594 on the land trips covering a combined area of approximately 400 000 km2. The CBMN represents a powerful approach to knowledge production by Inuit harvesters that is relevant to wildlife managers and co-management agencies. However, the data collected through the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board’s CBMN neither follow conventional wildlife study scientific standards, nor match the outputs of participatory Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit social science research. Instead, it represents a hybrid form of the types of information typically used in resource management discussions. Although such data can inform decision-making, further work may be necessary to fulfill this potential. Nunalingni uumajunik nauttiqsuaqarniq aturuminaqtuulluni upalungaijautiuvuq katujjillutik titiraqsivalliajut qaujimanirijaujunik taakkualu atuqtauvalliatuinnaliqtut nunaqaqqaaqsimajut nunalinginnit, pilirivingnut, ammalu gavamaujuni ukiuqtaqtulimaami. Jaannuari 2012-ngutillugu, nunavut uumajulirijirjuat katimajingit (NWMB) saqqittilauqsimajut nunalingni uumajunik nauttiqsuaqarnirmut piliriamik (CBMN) titiraqtauvalliaqullugit ullumiujuq inuit angunasugusingit aturlutik uajamuuqtunik ullumi atuqtauvaliqtunik nunavumi inuit angunasukpaktut, iqalugasukpaktut, nuatsivaktut, amma nauttiqsuaqaqpaktut uumajunik. unikkaaqaqattaqtugut qanuittuuninganik nunalingni uumajunik nauttiqsuaqarnirmut piliriangujumik ammalu uqautaullutik aksururnarningit ammalu piviksaujut nuattiqullugit tusagaksanik qaritaujakkut aturlugu nunalingni uumajunik nauttiqsuaqanirmut piliriangujuq atuqtauqattarniarmata aulatsijiuqatigiingujunut isumaliuqasuaqtillugit. nunalingni uumajunik nauttiqsuaqarnirmut pilirianguningagut nuattisimaliqtut tusagaksanik 7,225-nik aujaujuvinirnut ammalu 2,623-ngujut takujaujut titiraqtaullutik 85-ngujunut angunasuktinut 7-ngujuni nunaliujuni 5,594-ngirsurłutik aullaqtillugit nunami katitainnarillugit nuna aullarviusimajuq anginiqaqtigilluni sikkitaullutik kilaamitus 400,000 km2. Nunalingni uumajunik nauttiqsuaqanirmut piliriangujuq kiggaqtuivuq sanngijumik piliriaqarninginnut qaujimanirijaujut nuatautillugit inungnut angunasuktinut taakkua nuataujut atuutiqarniaqtillugit uumajulirinirmut aulatsijiujunut ammalu aulatsijiuqataujut pilirivinginnut. Kisianili, taakkua qaritaujakkut tusagaksat nuataujut nunavut uumajulirijirjuat katimajingita nunalingni uumajunik nauttiqsuaqarnirmut piliriangitigut maliksisimangittuq piusirijanginnik uumajunik qaujisainirivaktangita qaujisaqtimmariujut maliganginnik, ammalu angummatijaungittut saqqitauvaktut inungnut ilauqataujunut inuit qaujimajatuqanginnut inuusirmik qaujisaqtimmarit qaujisainirivaktangannut. Kisianili, kiggaqtuijut ajjigiingittunik tusagaksanik atuqtaugajuktunik tusaumattiarlutik isumaliuqtiujut isumauliqattaqullugit, tamatumunga iqqanaijakkannituinnariaqaqpugut pijariiqtaujunnaqullugu piviksaliangusimajuq.

Centralized management of large carnivore populations in rural and remote landscapes used by local people often leads to conflicts between the objectives of wildlife conservation and rural development. We tested the hypothesis that the presence of wolves indirectly reduces landowner revenues from traditional small game hunting, and that landowner revenues are more variable closer to wolf territories. The assumed mechanism is that hunters fear that their economically and culturally valuable hunting dogs may be killed by wolves, which results in reduced hunting, and thus reduced revenues for landowners where and when wolves occur. To determine the effect of wolf presence on revenues from sport hunting, we obtained data from 1990 to 2009 on income from small game management areas, in Hedmark and Oppland Counties in Norway, as well as locations of wolf territories. Small game management areas experienced increased sport hunting revenue with increasing distance to the closest wolf territory. Also, inter-annual variation in revenue decreased with increasing distance from wolf territories. Thus, wolf presence may reduce landowners’ revenues from small game hunting, and cause higher economic variability in rural communities. It is important to note that while the economic impacts of wolves may be compensated where governments have the will and the economic resources, the impacts on the lifestyles of rural people (e.g. hunter’s fear of losing prized dogs to wolves) will remain controversial.

Modern-day land claim agreements and protected area agreements create an opportunity to help reconcile the interests and worldviews of aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. Among protected area agreements, three in northern Canada contribute particularly to this objective. In the Saoyu-Ɂehdacho Agreement (2008), the Tuktut Nogait Agreement (1998) and the Gwaii Haanas Agreement (1993), various aboriginal authorities and the government of Canada have agreed to use the aboriginal concept and practice of consensus decision-making in their cooperative management of the vast tracts of land protected pursuant to these agreements. This paper discusses these agreements through the lenses of reconciliation, consensus decision-making and cooperative management. More specifically, it discusses the reconciliation objective underlying the recognition, in Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982, of aboriginal and treaty rights; the nature and main elements of consensus decision-making; the alternative meanings of the terms “co-operative management” and “co-management”; internal conflicts at the heart of both concepts and a way out of the conflict; cooperative management as consensus decision-making within existing legal and land claims authorities; the specifics of the Saoyu-Ɂehdacho Agreement and related legal issues; the innovation at the heart of all three agreements; and the essential elements of consensus-based cooperative management agreements and the practice of cooperative management. Using the model set out in these agreements, we can negotiate protected area and cooperative management agreements that reconcile the objectives and terms of modern day land claim agreements and legislation with the older aboriginal tradition of consensus decision making.