Wildlife Co-management Research Articles

Weaving together Inuit knowledge and western science: a mixed-methods case study of qilalugaq (beluga whale) in Quaqtaq, Nunavik

The harvest and consumption of country food is a cornerstone of Inuit culture, sovereignty, food security, and nutrition. Qilalugaq (beluga whales) ( Delphinapterus leucas (Pallas, 1776)) are hunted across the Canadian Arctic and are an especially important food source for Inuit communities in Nunavik, northern Québec, Canada. The presence of environmental contaminants and nutrients in beluga has been the subject of recent research interest, including the role of selenoneine and its interactions with methylmercury. Using interviews conducted in Quaqtaq and analyses of beluga tissue samples harvested by hunters, this study aimed to bridge Inuit knowledge and scientific knowledge to understand how beluga hunting, preparation, and consumption practices may explain the different levels of selenoneine found in Nunavimmiut (Inuit from Nunavik). It also sought to characterize the health, social, and cultural importance of beluga and factors influencing its consumption. Research findings confirmed the important role of beluga in Nunavimmiut culture, food security, and nutrition. Findings documented gender-based consumption practices, including consumption of the selenoneine-rich beluga tail exclusively by women, which may explain previously documented gender differences in blood selenoneine levels. This study demonstrates the utility of weaving Inuit knowledge and scientific knowledge to inform future environmental health research, public health communications, and wildlife comanagement.

The connection between wildlife co-management and indigenous well-being: What does the academic literature reveal?

Globally, co-management systems have emerged as negotiated agreements designed to share responsibilities among Indigenous Peoples and State governments for the management of fish and wildlife. Co-management practitioners and policies regularly make decisions that influence the ways in which Indigenous Peoples interact with the lands, waters, and natural resources. The goal of this systematic critical review was to characterize the ways in which published research on co-management governance systems in Canada did or did not explicitly engage with Indigenous Peoples’ health and well-being as a key focus. ProQuest®, Web of Science™, and JSTOR® databases were searched to identify literature published from 1973 to 2020 about co-management systems in Canada. The citations and articles were screened for relevance by two independent reviewers, using inclusion criteria developed a priori. Relevant articles were analyzed descriptively and qualitatively, using a health and well-being framework developed as an analytical framework for this study by integrating key attributes from three Indigenous social determinants of health models in Canada. The search resulted in 9,905 citations; 74 publications met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. None of the included publications explicitly analyzed co-management from a public health or well-being lens; however, social determinants of health topics were implicit, prevalent, and connected to co-management throughout the literature. Social determinants of Indigenous Peoples’ health, such as land and ecosystems, food systems and security, Indigenous knowledge systems, culture, self-determination, and colonialism, were frequently represented in the co-management literature, even if not directly framed by the authors from a health perspective.

Qanuq ukua kanguit sunialiqpitigu?(What should we do with all of these geese?) Collaborative research to support wildlife co-management and Inuit self-determination

Inuit living in Nunavut have harvested light geese and lived near goose colonies for generations. Inuit knowledge includes important information about light goose ecology and management that can inform co-management and enhance scientific research and monitoring. Since the 1970s, populations of light geese (Snow and Ross’ Geese; kanguit and kangunnait in Inuktut; Chen caerulescens (Linnaeus, 1758) and Chen rossii (Cassin, 1861)) have experienced significant increases in abundance which led to habitat alteration in some portions of the central and eastern Canadian Arctic. In response to concerns expressed by Inuit and wildlife managers about light goose abundance, we conducted a collaborative research project in Arviat and Salliq (Coral Harbour), Nunavut, aiming to mobilize and document Inuit knowledge about light goose ecology and management in the Kivalliq region. Here, we explore the potential of collaborative research for mobilizing Inuit knowledge to support informed and inclusive decision-making about wildlife resources. First, we describe the participatory research methods employed to explore Inuit-identified management recommendations for light geese and engage co-management partners and research contributors to explore select management options. Then, we present these light goose management recommendations and options. Lastly, we discuss opportunities and challenges around the use of collaborative research to support wildlife co-management and Inuit self-determination.Inuit nunaqaqtut Nunavuumi angunasuksimalirmata kanguqpangnik kangurniglu nunaqarvingita sanianni araagunik unuqtunnik. Inuit qaujimaningat ilaqaqpuq aturnilingnik kanguit niqinginnik mianirijauninginniklu tusaumatitaulutik qaujisarningit mianiriyaunigillu. Taimangat 1970s atuqtilugit, kanguit unirningit (kanguit amma kanguaryuit Inuktut; Chen caerulescens (Linnaeus, 1758) amma Chen rossii (Cassin, 1861)) ayunganaqtukut pisimangmata unulialiqlutik amma niqiqatiarungnauqlutik Kanataup uqiuktaqtunngani. Tamana piblugu Inuit uumayuliriyillu isumaalulirmata kanguit unulualirninginnik, taima qaujisarnirmik pigialauqpugut Arvianni and Sallim (Coral Harbour), Nunavuumi, aulataulutik amma qaujisagaulutik Inuit kaujimajagit kangurnik Kivallirmi. Tavani atuqtuuluaqtunik qaujisarnirmut mianiqsinirmullu pitaqaqpuq Inuit nagminiq isumaliurlutik nirjutinut atugaksanullu. Sivullirmik, qaujisarniup qanuinninga isumagilugu kanguit mianirijauninginut. Amma suli, uqausirilirlugu kanguit mianirijauningat atugaujuuluaqtullu. Kingulirmik, uqausirilugu atuinnaujut amma ajurutaujut qaujisarniup iluanni nirjutinik amma Inuit nagminiq aulatuulualirninginnik.

Livelihood impacts and governance processes of community-based wildlife conservation in Maasai Mara ecosystem, Kenya

Community-based wildlife conservation (CBWC) programmes have been a pervasive paradigm in the conservation circles since the 1970s. The key elements of such programmes are that local communities are given ownership rights or custodianship and management responsibilities over wildlife, and that they gain social and economic benefits from conservation of the resources. However, to date, there have been only a few studies that offer in-depth analyses of the interplay between governance processes and livelihood impacts of CBWC programmes. Here, I conducted key informant interviews and focus group discussions in five wildlife conservancies in the Maasai Mara ecosystem in Kenya to address the following questions: i) What are the perceived impacts of the wildlife conservancies on livelihoods of the local people? ii) To what extent are the wildlife conservancies governed in relation to the principles of environmental governance? I assessed impacts on livelihoods by applying the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework to explore perceived conservancy-related benefits and costs (i.e. perceived changes in social, financial, human, physical, and natural capitals). I assessed governance by asking the respondents whether the following eight principles of environmental governance were applied: legitimacy, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, fairness, integration, capability, and adaptability. Perceived benefits of participating in wildlife co-management were identified as: enhanced income from gainful employment and new business opportunities, membership to cooperative societies and participation in community work (e.g. school bursary and feeding programmes), enhanced social relations, improved access to credit and health facilities, enhanced physical infrastructure (schools, roads and bridges), improved physical security and coordinated sharing of provisioning ecosystem services like pasture and water. The principles of legitimacy, inclusiveness, and integration had reportedly been well implemented in wildlife co-management. However, the institutional mechanisms for sharing resources within the conservancies lacked transparency, accountability, and fairness, and tended to favour those who were politically connected to the leadership of the conservancies. Moreover, most of the conservancies had weak systems and few resources to facilitate delivery on responsibilities (i.e. had low capability), and had some costs associated with human-wildlife conflicts. For an improved co-management of wildlife to be achieved in these conservancies, local institutions should be reconfigured to allow active participation by conservancy landowners in decision-making, information sharing, and equitable access to conservancy-related benefits.

국가 자연자원 관리 하의 리커머닝 －대만의 원주민-국가 야생생물 공동관리체제의 최신 동향－

국가 자연자원 관리 하의 리커머닝 －대만의 원주민-국가 야생생물 공동관리체제의 최신 동향－

Inuit Attitudes towards Co-Managing Wildlife in Three Communities in the Kivalliq Region of Nunavut, Canada

We explored Inuit attitudes towards co-managing wildlife in the Kivalliq Region of Nunavut, Canada, working in partnership with the hunters and trappers’ organizations of Igluligaarjuk (Chesterfield Inlet), Tikirarjuaq (Whale Cove), and Qamani’tuaq (Baker Lake). In mixed-methods interviews, study participants in the two coastal communities described dissatisfaction with polar bear (Ursus maritimus) management outcomes, in contrast to a general satisfaction with (or indifference to) the management of other species. Interviewees expressed concern about grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and, more prominently, caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) populations in Qamani’tuaq, the inland community. Researchers have predicted that conflicts specific to polar bear management could lead to regulations being ignored or even defied and endanger the entire system of wildlife co-management. Our results indicate that dissatisfaction over decisions is specific to polar bear management outcomes and does not necessarily apply to the broader system of wildlife co-management. The results suggest that the Nunavut wildlife co-management system is quite functional: polar bear issues aside, Inuit in Qamani’tuaq, Tikirarjuaq, and Igluligaarjuk are largely content with the current functioning of the wildlife co-management regime.

Iqaluktutiaq Voices: Local Perspectives about the Importance of Muskoxen, Contemporary and Traditional Use and Practices + Supplementary Appendices S1–S5 (See Article Tools)

Understanding human-wildlife relationships and interactions is crucial to implementing policies and practices related to wildlife and public health that are locally relevant and adapted to local communities and needs. With the goal of informing a community-based participatory muskox health surveillance system in the community of Iqaluktutiaq (Cambridge Bay) on Victoria Island, Nunavut, Canada, we explored the importance of muskoxen for community residents, their relevance for local food security, and the relationships and interactions between Iqaluktutiamiut and muskoxen. We investigated these themes through individual interviews of 30 community members identified as muskox experts by local organizations. Results were finalized and refined with 26 interviewees in feedback sessions. For Iqaluktutiaq residents, muskoxen have nutritional, economic, sociocultural, and environmental importance. The decline of muskoxen documented locally has a multidimensional impact on the community, with negative effects on all the domains explored, from food security to the integrity of the cultural system. Descriptions of subsistence and commercial harvesting and butchering practices are an asset for the successful implementation of participatory muskox health surveillance activities (e.g., hunter-based sampling), as well as for interpretation of derived data (e.g., local knowledge on muskox diseases). Knowledge of specific harvesting practices that might increase exposure to zoonotic agents is also relevant for designing targeted strategies to mitigate public health risks. This research underlines how careful examination of the human-wildlife context through local perspectives can benefit wildlife health surveillance, public health, and wildlife co-management outcomes.

“Letting the leaders pass”: barriers to using traditional ecological knowledge in comanagement as the basis of formal hunting regulations

We studied a case of failure in applying traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in comanagement as the basis for formal hunting regulations. We based the study on the Porcupine Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) Herd “let the leaders pass” policy, established for the Dempster Highway of the Western Canadian Arctic, and identified conditions creating barriers in the successful application of TEK through comanagement. Stated as propositions, identified barriers include: (1) the context-specific nature of TEK limits its application in resource management regulations; (2) changes in traditional authority systems, hunting technology, and the social organization of harvesting caribou affect the effectiveness of TEK approaches in a contemporary social setting; (3) indigenous efforts toward self-government and political autonomy limit regional comanagement consensus in a heterogeneous cultural landscape; (4) the mismatch of agency enforcement of hunting regulations and TEK-based education is problematic. We analyzed the case through four historical phases of caribou management, complementing the study with a literature review of TEK and wildlife comanagement to explain why TEK integration of caribou leaders in regulatory resource management fell short of success. Identifying and understanding the social dynamics related to these barriers make apparent solutions for transforming the comanagement process.

Knowledge exchange and policy influence in a marine resource governance network

Few case studies have considered the impact of network structure on the resilience of complex resource management systems that operate over large spatial scales. To help fill this knowledge gap our study examined two types of relational ties—knowledge exchange and policy influence—within a marine wildlife co-management network in Northern Australia. We conducted interviews and follow-up surveys with key-informant stakeholders in dugong and marine turtle management and used these data to perform social network analysis for the dugong and turtle co-management network. The network structure of this marine governance system supports extensive cross-scale information flow, but with a disproportionate amount of top-down policy influence compared with knowledge accumulation, an arrangement that may hinder evidence-based decision making. We developed a typological ‘map’ of stakeholder roles in the network to characterize each stakeholder's contribution of knowledge and ability to influence policy, helping to identify gaps or overlaps in network linkages. Improving communication links between knowledge producers and policy makers is important for evidence based decision making throughout the management network, while addressing overlapping management roles and functions should help decrease conflict in the system. These improvements would increase social-ecological resilience in the management network by providing better protection for marine species while meeting the needs of diverse stakeholders.

Reducing Vulnerability to Climate Change in the Arctic: The Case of Nunavut, Canada

Research conducted with the communities of Arctic Bay and Igloolik in Nunavut identified key areas where policy can help Inuit reduce their vulnerability to climate change, focusing on the renewable resource harvesting sector. The policy responses are based on an understanding of policy development and decision making and on an understanding of the processes that shape vulnerability, which in Nunavut comprise the erosion of traditional Inuit knowledge and land-based skills, the weakening of social networks, and a reduction in harvesting flexibility. Policies relating to cultural preservation, wildlife comanagement, and harvester support can serve as entry points for influencing these processes. Our recommendations fall within the mandates of the Government of Nunavut and the institutions created under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and they have been identified as policy priorities by communities and Inuit organizations.

Community clusters in wildlife and environmental management: using TEK and community involvement to improve co-management in an era of rapid environmental change

Environmental change has stressed wildlife co-management systems in the Arctic because parameters are changing more rapidly than traditional scientific monitoring can accommodate. Co-management systems have also been criticized for not fully integrating harvesters into the local management of resources. These two problems can be approached through the use of spatiallydefined human social units termed community clusters, which are based on the demographic or ecological units being managed. An examination of polar bear management in Nunavut Territory, Canada, shows that community clusters provide a forum to collect and analyse traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) over a geographic area that mirrors the management unit, providing detailed information of local conditions. This case study also provides examples of how instituting community clusters at a governance level provides harvesters with social space in which to develop their roles as managers, along the continuum from being powerless spectators to active, adaptive co-managers. Five steps for enhancing co-management systems through the inclusion of community clusters and their knowledge are: (1) the acceptance of TEK, science, the precautionary principle and the right of harvesters not to be constrained by overly-conservative management decisions; (2) data collection involving TEK and science, and a collaboration between the two; (3) institutionalization of community clusters for data collection; (4) institutionalization of community clusters in the management process; and (5) grass-roots initiatives to take advantage of the social space provided by the community cluster approach, in order to adapt the management to local conditions, and to effect policy changes at higher levels, so as to better meet local objectives.

Community clusters in wildlife and environmental management: using TEK and community involvement to improve co-management in an era of rapid environmental change

Environmental change has stressed wildlife co-management systems in the Arctic because parameters are changing more rapidly than traditional scientific monitoring can accommodate. Co-management systems have also been criticized for not fully integrating harvesters into the local management of resources. These two problems can be approached through the use of spatiallydefined human social units termed community clusters, which are based on the demographic or ecological units being managed. An examination of polar bear management in Nunavut Territory, Canada, shows that community clusters provide a forum to collect and analyse traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) over a geographic area that mirrors the management unit, providing detailed information of local conditions. This case study also provides examples of how instituting community clusters at a governance level provides harvesters with social space in which to develop their roles as managers, along the continuum from being powerless spectators to active, adaptive co-managers. Five steps for enhancing co-management systems through the inclusion of community clusters and their knowledge are: (1) the acceptance of TEK, science, the precautionary principle and the right of harvesters not to be constrained by overly-conservative management decisions; (2) data collection involving TEK and science, and a collaboration between the two; (3) institutionalization of community clusters for data collection; (4) institutionalization of community clusters in the management process; and (5) grass-roots initiatives to take advantage of the social space provided by the community cluster approach, in order to adapt the management to local conditions, and to effect policy changes at higher levels, so as to better meet local objectives.

Improving the benefits of wildlife harvesting in Northern Cameroon: a co-management perspective

We examined ways of improving the incentive structure of a safari company, the state, and the local communities within a wildlife co-management framework in Northern Cameroon. To this end, we built an integer linear programming model with state-allocated quotas and a profit maximisation objective function for a typical hunting concession. The model was evaluated under three scenarios representing varying taxation schemes and apportionment of trophy fees and company's profits. Further, we set forth three principles that should underlie a good incentive structure, namely (i) a close link to the resource base, (ii) economic sustainability, and (iii) a transfer of land property rights from the state to the communities neighbouring the hunting areas. Our results indicate that the safari company would improve its profits if the concession term is extended to 15 years and a single business tax is substituted to the current myriad of levies. The local communities should be apportioned 25% of the trophy fees and a negotiated percentage of the company's profit, in return for resource custodianship. Finally, the state could expect an increased efficiency of its conservation policy through an improved regulatory framework and a more equitable distribution of wildlife revenues.

Relative importance and determinants of landowners’ transaction costs in collaborative wildlife management in Kenya: an empirical analysis

Collaborative management of protected areas—which involves state agencies, local communities and other stakeholders—has been identified as a promising approach of organising nature conservation. However, as a complex governance structure, co-management can be expected to involve considerable transaction costs for the participating stakeholders. Empirical studies concerning the quantification of these costs are still scarce. Against this background, this paper empirically analyses the relative importance and the determinants of the landowners’ transaction costs arising from collaborative wildlife management, taking two wildlife sanctuaries in Kenya as examples. The empirical data presented in this paper was collected in the wildlife dispersal areas of Shimba Hills National Reserve and Amboseli National Park in Kenya. The results of this study show that—as compared to other cost categories—the landowners’ transaction costs incurred in wildlife co-management were relatively low. They also indicate that the magnitude of the transaction costs incurred by landowners is influenced by the attributes of transactions; bio-physical and ecological characteristics of the resource systems; landowners’ characteristics such as their human, social and financial forms of capital; losses resulting from human–wildlife conflicts; tenure security and benefits from conservation. Comparing the results of a two-stage least squares regression model of landowners’ characteristics of the two wildlife sanctuaries, it was found that the level of significance and the sign of most variables are not the same for both areas. This indicates that it is a specific combination of local factors that influences the transaction costs borne by the landowners.

Wildlife Co-Management in the Bénoué National Park-Complex, Cameroon: A Bumpy Road to Institutional Development

The ongoing efforts to set up wildlife co-management in Northern Cameroon are investigated. To this end, a situation analysis of legal, social, economic, and organizational factors was performed. It thus appeared that participatory management has been slow to institutionalize due to inadequate legislation, poor planning, and insufficient policy formulation. Building on the results, suggestions are made with reference to the ecosystem approach. It is argued that wildlife collaborative management should be a triadic convention involving state agencies, the private enterprise (professional hunters), and the civil society (community of local users and facilitating nongovernmental organizations) in the sharing of roles and benefits.

Wildlife Co-management defined: The Beverly and Kaminuriak Caribou Management Board

A comparison of indigenous and scientific forms of wildlife data gathering and conservation/management reveals similarities and differences. The two systems are needed to effectively manage wildlife in northern Canada, particularly migratory, trans-boundary species. The Beverly and Kaminuriak Caribou Management Board brought multi-jurisdictional caribou users and managers together to co-manage two large herds of caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlan-dicus). The advisory Board's principal duties and responsibilities are communication and to maintain the two herds at population levels that will meet user needs. Goals, objectives, and principles are set out in a management plan. Board activities are structured in 15 action plans under major categories of communication, supply of caribou, use of caribou, and habitat. Board successes are attributed to use of the plan to guide actions; to the Chairmen and vice-Chairmen; to the quality of founding members and their continuity; to effective vehicles of communication such as a newspaper, radio, video, and community meetings; to a spirit of cooperation; and to high caribou numbers because of high productivity combined with poor accessibility. Problem areas include technical limitations, members' decreasing powers and increasing turnover, inadequate communication of Board objectives and activities within the communities, and accountability. Future challenges include the management of caribou shortages, obtaining better herd data, and the need for more intensive management as user populations grow.