Inuvialuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of Beluga Whale (Delphinaterus leucas) in a Changing Climate in Tuktoyaktuk, NT - University of ...

Page created by Vanessa Burton
 
CONTINUE READING
Inuvialuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of Beluga Whale (Delphinaterus leucas) in a Changing Climate in Tuktoyaktuk, NT - University of ...
Inuvialuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of Beluga Whale
 (Delphinaterus leucas) in a Changing Climate in Tuktoyaktuk, NT
                                  By

                            Devin Waugh

                              A thesis
                           presented to
                      The University of Guelph

                 In partial fulfillment of requirements
                             for the degree of
                          Masters of Science
                                     in
                                Geography

                      Guelph, Ontario, Canada

                   © Devin Waugh, January, 2018
Inuvialuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of Beluga Whale (Delphinaterus leucas) in a Changing Climate in Tuktoyaktuk, NT - University of ...
ABSTRACT

    INUVIALUIT TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE (TEK) OF BELUGA
       WHALE (DELPHINATERUS LEUCAS) IN A CHANGING CLIMATE IN
                           TUKTOYAKTUK, NT

Devin Waugh                                                                   Advisor:
University of Guelph, 2018                                          Dr. Tristan Pearce
                                                                  Committee Members:
                                                                    Dr. Ben Bradshaw
                                                                    Dr. Sonja Ostertag

       Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) are an important food source for

Inuvialuit, Indigenous peoples of the western Canadian Arctic. This thesis documents

Inuvialuit TEK about the ecology and behaviour of the beluga whale, hunting

techniques, food preparation and values, in the context of changing climatic conditions

in Tuktoyaktuk, NT. Data were collected using semi-directed interviews with 17

Inuvialuit beluga harvesters and participant observation, and thematic analysis methods

were used to code data. The research found that Inuvialuit harvesters possess detailed

rational knowledge of beluga, particularly regarding hunting techniques and food

preparation, and are guided by a moral code about how to behave with respect to

beluga. Inuvialuit are observing rapid changes in the environment, some with

implications for beluga hunting and food preparation but are coping thus far. This

research contributes to addressing gaps in the literature on Inuvialuit perspectives on

beluga, particularly in the context of rapid climatic change.
Inuvialuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of Beluga Whale (Delphinaterus leucas) in a Changing Climate in Tuktoyaktuk, NT - University of ...
iii

                                  Acknowledgements

This research would not be possible without the willingness of the community of

Tuktoyaktuk to be open and supportive of the research. I would particularly like to thank

the Tuktoyaktuk Hunters and Trappers Committee for supporting the research and

providing feedback throughout the research process. I would also to thank Verna Pokiak

for her hard work and professionalism throughout the field season as research

assistant, and her sage advice over many cups of tea and coffee. I thank Charles

Pokiak, Frank Pokiak, James Pokiak, Lucky Pokiak, Nellie Pokiak, Peter Nogasak,

Randall “Boogie” Pokiak, Raymond Cockney, Raymond Mangelana, Ron Felix, Roy

Cockney, Sam Gruben, Sam Pingo, Wayne Cockney, Willy Carpenter, and two

anonymous participants for graciously sharing their incredible knowledge of beluga, just

a small facet of the collective knowledge of the environment in the community. The

participants’ kindness and enthusiasm for beluga made the research a pleasure to

undertake. Thanks to Sonja Ostertag and Lisa Loseto for introducing me to the

community, and for their support and expertise on our several trips in the Inuvialuit

Settlement Region (ISR). I would also like to thank my parents, Neil and Rosanne, my

sister Emily, and my girlfriend Leah for their love and support over the last two years.

Thanks to Office 351 and the rest of the Hutt family for the on-campus comradery and

support throughout this journey. Thanks to Tristan and Ben for taking me on as a

student, and guiding me through the incredible experience that has been arctic

research; and to Peter Collings for providing excellent intellectual guidance in the

production of a manuscript from this work. Finally, I acknowledge financial support from

the Aurora Research Institute, the Northern Scientific Training Program (NSTP),
Inuvialuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of Beluga Whale (Delphinaterus leucas) in a Changing Climate in Tuktoyaktuk, NT - University of ...
iv

SSHRC, NSERC, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and ArcticNet Project 1.8 -

Knowledge Co-Production for the Identification and Selection of Ecological, Social, and

Economic Indicators for the Beaufort Sea.
Inuvialuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of Beluga Whale (Delphinaterus leucas) in a Changing Climate in Tuktoyaktuk, NT - University of ...
v

                                                 Table of Contents

Chapter I – Introduction.................................................................................................1
     1.1 Research Context............................................................................................1
     1.2 Research Aim and Objectives..........................................................................4
     1.3 Thesis Organization.........................................................................................4

Chapter II – Literature Review.......................................................................................6
     2.1 Climate Change in the Arctic...........................................................................6
             2.1.1 Snow Cover........................................................................................7
             2.1.2 Sea Ice...............................................................................................8
             2.1.3 Marine Ecosystems............................................................................9
             2.1.4 Terrestrial Ecosystems.....................................................................10
     2.2 Beluga Ecology and Behaviour......................................................................11
     2.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge..................................................................14
             2.3.1 TEK of Arctic Wildlife........................................................................17
     2.4 TEK and Wildlife Management......................................................................20
             2.4.1 Co-Management Frameworks..........................................................22

Chapter III – Case Study Location...............................................................................24
     3.1 Inuvialuit.........................................................................................................24
      3.2 Inuvialuit Settlement Region..........................................................................24
     3.3 Tuktoyaktuk, NT.............................................................................................27

Chapter IV – Methodology...........................................................................................30
     4.1 Community Researcher Relations.................................................................30
            4.1.1 Early Communication.......................................................................31
            4.1.2 Community Involvement in Research and Design...........................32
            4.1.3 Opportunities for Local Employment................................................32
            4.1.4 Dissemination of Results..................................................................33
     4.2 Research Participants....................................................................................33
            4.2.1 Number of Research Participants....................................................34
     4.3 Mapping.........................................................................................................35
     4.4 Semi-Structured Interviews............................................................................35
     4.5 Participant Observation and Phased Assertion.............................................37

Chapter V – Results......................................................................................................40
      5.1 Beluga Ecology and Behaviour ....................................................................40
      5.2 Hunting Techniques .....................................................................................42
      5.3 Food Preparation..........................................................................................45
      5.4 Values...........................................................................................................49
      5.5 Observations of Change...............................................................................51

Chapter VI – Discussion...............................................................................................56
      6.1 Implications for Co-Management of Beluga in the ISR.................................64
vi

Chapter VII – Conclusion.............................................................................................68
     7.1 Summary of Results.......................................................................................68
     7.2 Scholarly Contributions..................................................................................70
     7.3 Practical Contributions...................................................................................71
     7.4 Future Research............................................................................................72

Bibliography..................................................................................................................73

Appendix I – Interview Guide.......................................................................................83
Appendix II – Interview Consent Form.......................................................................85
Appendix III – Northwest Territories Research License...........................................90
Appendix IV – University of Guelph Ethics Approval...............................................92
vii

                                                     List of Tables

Table 4.2 – Demographics of Research Participants.....................................................35

Table 4.3 – Sample Interview Questions from Interview Guide.....................................37

Table 5.1 - Summary of Scientific and TEK Understandings of Environmental Change in
      Tuktoyaktuk .........................................................................................................55

Table 6.1 - Harvesters’ Observations of Environmental Change and their Observed and
      Potential Impacts on Beluga Harvesting..............................................................62

                                                    List of Figures

Figure 3.1 – Location of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region and Tuktoyaktuk, NT...........26

Figure 3.3 - Location of Tuktoyaktuk and Kittigaryuit Marine Protected Area (MPA).....29

Figure 4.1 - Key Considerations for Engaging Arctic Communities in Collaborative
      Research.. ...........................................................................................................31

Figure 5.1 - Tuktoyaktuk Coastal Environs and Kittigaryuit Marine Protected Area
      (MPA)...................................................................................................................41
Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 Research Context

       Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) are widely distributed across the Arctic,

and are hunted by many Indigenous peoples. The eastern Beaufort Sea stock is one of

Canada’s largest beluga populations, migrating between the waters off Alaska, Russia,

the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut throughout its annual cycle (DFO, 2002;

Harwood & Smith, 2002; Harwood & Kingsley, 2013). The migratory pattern of this

population brings it into close proximity to communities in the Inuvialuit Settlement

Region (ISR) from late May to September. Beluga is an important food source for the

Inuvialuit, Inuit of the western Arctic, and the harvesting, preparation and sharing of the

species is an important cultural activity. All communities within the ISR hunt beluga but

the community of Tuktoyaktuk, located on the east side of Kugmallit Bay in the

Mackenzie River Estuary, is typically the most active (Harwood et al. 2002). Inuvialuit in

Tuktoyaktuk possess detailed bodies of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of

beluga whales, including ecology and behaviour, hunting techniques, and food

preparation methods. This body of TEK has been developed through an accumulation

of location-specific observations and refinement of techniques over time, passed down

through generations. This knowledge is continually updated to reflect new observations

and to take advantage of new technologies (Wenzel, 1991; Aporta & Higgs, 2005). This

thesis dissertation focuses on documenting these facets of TEK about beluga that are

not well represented in the literature and go beyond knowledge of beluga ecology and

behaviour, to also include knowledge of how Inuvialuit currently use and value beluga

(Usher, 2000).

                                             1
This research builds on a body of scholarship on Inuit TEK of different species of

wildlife in the Arctic. Previous studies have examined aspects of bodies of TEK around

various species, including, for example, eider duck by Nakashima (1986) in northern

Quebec, polar bear by Wenzel and Tyrell (1983) in the NWT, beluga by Huntington et

al. (1999) and Mymrin and Huntington (1999) in Alaska and Russia, Greenland shark by

Idrobo and Berkes (2012) in Pangnirtung, caribou by Ferguson and Messier (1996) on

Baffin Island, and ringed seal by Furgal, Innes, & Kovacs (2002) in Arctic Bay. Outside

of Canada, a handful of studies have documented TEK of beluga in the Chukchi and

Northern Bering Sea working with communities in Alaska and Russia (Huntington, 1999;

Mymrin & Huntington, 1999). These studies examined TEK of the natural history of

beluga, including distribution, migration, abundance, feeding, calving, molting, and

response to anthropogenic disturbance. Hunting and butchering techniques of beluga

have also been examined in Alaska in the community of Buckland (Marseth, 1997).

However, despite a long history of Inuvialuit interaction with beluga and its continued

nutritional and cultural importance, there has been limited documentation of Inuit

knowledge of beluga whale in the Canadian Arctic (Breton-Honeyman, Furgal, &

Hammill, 2016). This lack of documentation is particularly relevant at time when the

Arctic is experiencing rapid climate change with uncertain consequences for beluga and

Inuvialuit hunters, and a dataset on beluga that is limited to scientific measurements.

These factors have contributed to an increasing interest from Inuit and non-Inuit alike to

study and incorporate Indigenous perspectives into the scholarship on beluga and other

important arctic species. Average circumpolar temperatures have risen approximately

twice as much as average global temperatures since 1981 (Screen & Simmonds, 2010).

                                            2
The rise in average temperature has altered numerous characteristics of the physical

environment, such as sea ice extent and thickness, snow cover, permafrost,

precipitation and wind patterns (Larsen et al., 2014). These changes, in turn, have

impacted ecosystems, marine and terrestrial animals, and the Inuit communities that

depend on them. As the distribution, abundance, and composition of prey communities

are affected, the health and availability of marine and terrestrial wildlife at higher trophic

levels that Inuit communities rely on for subsistence are also impacted (Litzow et al.,

2006; Pearce et al., 2010).

       Biological studies, followed by studies on management/co-management, make

up much of the literature on beluga (Breton-Honeyman et al., 2016). Outside of these

published studies, Inuit knowledge of beluga has contributed greatly to the

understanding and management of the species in co-management settings, but the

literature does not reflect this (Breton-Honeyman et al., 2016). This lack of published

documentation has real implications for the visibility of Inuit perspectives, and for the

equitability of co-management arrangements that draw on bodies of scholarship

dominated by western scientific studies. This research responds to this knowledge need

and documents what Inuvialuit know about beluga and how they use and value beluga,

focusing on knowledge of beluga behaviour and ecology, hunting techniques, and

subsistence food preparation. The research then examines these facets of Inuvialuit

TEK of beluga in the context of ongoing climatic changes in the region to understand

how these changes are affecting Inuvialuit, beluga, and beluga harvesting activities.

                                              3
1.2 Research Aim and Objectives

      The aim of the research is to document Inuvialuit traditional ecological knowledge

(TEK) of beluga whale in the context of changing climatic conditions in Tuktoyaktuk in

the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR). The aim is realized through three objectives:

       1) document Inuvialuit traditional ecological knowledge of beluga whale ecology

       and behaviour, hunting technique and subsistence food preparation;

      2) identify changing environmental conditions affecting Inuvialuit-beluga

      interactions; and

      3) examine if and how these changing environmental conditions are affecting

      Inuvialuit, beluga and beluga harvesting activities.

1.3 Thesis Dissertation Organization

      The thesis dissertation is organized into seven chapters. Chapter Two, Literature

Review, presents a review of relevant literature to broadly situate the research,

including scholarship regarding climate change in the Arctic, beluga ecology and

behaviour, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and wildlife co-management.

Chapter Three, Case Study Location, reviews the geographical context of the research

including the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) and Tuktoyaktuk, NT. Chapter Four,

Methodology, presents the methodological approaches utilized in the research. Chapter

Five, Results, describes what was found through the research that addresses objectives

1-3, in addition to highlighting Inuvialuit values around beluga, and changes that are

being observed in the whales and the broader biophysical environment. Chapter Six,

Discussion, considers the significance of the results in the context of each body of

                                            4
scholarship and addresses objectives 2 and 3. Chapter Seven, Conclusions,

summarizes, and highlights the implications of, the key research findings, outlines the

scholarly contributions of the research, and suggests future research opportunities.

                                            5
Chapter 2 - Literature Review

    This thesis dissertation engages with scholarship on climate change in the Arctic,

beluga behaviour and ecology, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and wildlife co-

management. This chapter reviews all four bodies of scholarship, developing a

theoretical and practical foundation for this research.

2.1 Climate Change in the Arctic

   There is consensus amongst scientists that climate change induced by human

activity is occurring (Larsen et al., 2014). Greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon

dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, have increased steadily since 1750, leading to

atmospheric concentrations that “are unprecedented in the last 800,000 years” (Larsen

et al., p.4, 2014). These emissions have altered the composition of the atmosphere,

leading to warming of the oceans and atmosphere, reductions in ice and snow, changes

in land cover, and a rise in sea level (Larsen et al., 2014). The relatively rapid changes

in the global climate system that are occurring have increasingly serious implications for

natural and human systems around the globe (Larsen et al., 2014). These implications

are even more concerning for the Arctic where warming is noted to be occurring at a

faster rate and greater extent compared to the rest of the world (Larsen et al., 2014).

Arctic near surface air temperatures have risen at nearly twice the rate of the global

average through ‘arctic amplification’ processes, namely through positive snow and ice

albedo reduction feedbacks (Screen & Simmonds, 2010).

   Numerous biophysical environmental changes have already been observed in the

Arctic including reductions in sea ice, increased coastal erosion, thawing permafrost,

                                             6
ocean acidification, changes in river inflow, and changes in fish and wildlife distribution

and health (Larsen et al., 2014; Stroeve et al., 2012; Overeem et al., 2011; Callaghan et

al., 2011; Steiner et al., 2013). In addition to the changes observed, there is a threat of

several positive feedback mechanisms in the Arctic that may contribute to accelerated

warming at the local and global levels. These mechanisms include increased energy

absorption from reduced snow and ice albedo, release of stored carbon from thawing

permafrost layers, and the release of stored seabed methane hydrates (Brown, Derkson

& Wang, 2010; Whiteman, Hope & Wadhams, 2013; Schurr et al., 2013). The northern

permafrost zone is estimated to 1700 gigatonnes (Gt) and stored seabed methane is

estimated at 50 Gt making them both major concerns as they are liberated by warming

temperatures (Whiteman et al., 2013; Schurr et al., 2013). Environmental changes in

the Arctic are predicted to exhibit spatial heterogeneity and vary in rate and magnitude

(Van Hemert, 2015). Four prominent sub-areas of research on climate change in the

Arctic will be covered, including effects on snow cover, sea ice, marine ecosystems, and

terrestrial ecosystems.

2.1.1 Snow Cover

       The steady decrease in indicators of snow cover such as snow cover duration

(SCD), snow cover extent (SCE), and snow water equivalent (SWE), over the last

number of decades is expected to continue in the Arctic (Callaghan et al., 2011). Over

the last 50 years in the Canadian Arctic, snow cover duration (SCD) has decreased at a

rate of approximately 2.8 days per decade, and maximum snow depth has decreased at

a rate of approximately 1.9 cm per decade (Callaghan et al., 2011). SCE and SWE have

                                             7
also been decreasing over the same period, with implications for albedo warming

feedbacks from more exposed darker ground (Callaghan et al., 2011). Snow cover

structure and the frequency of rain-on-snow events, which can both affect sub-snow

cover animal feeding behaviour, have also been changing (Callaghan et al., 2011).

Climate models predict a 10-20% decrease in overall snow cover along with decreases

in other snow indicators by 2050, with changes most pronounced in coastal areas

(Callaghan et al., 2011).

2.1.2 Sea Ice

       Sea ice is the dominant feature of polar oceans, and changes in sea ice

conditions due to climate warming are one of the dominant influences on biophysical

systems in the Arctic region (Larsen et al., 2014). Positive ice-albedo feedback loops

leading to greater radiative warming account for the Arctic amplification phenomena that

causes the Arctic to warm at approximately two times the average global rate since the

1980s (Larsen et al., 2014). This accelerated warming has led to an accelerating rate of

decline in sea ice extent that has exceeded climatic models, resulting in record arctic

summer ice minima several times in the last decade (Larsen et al., 2014; Stroeve et al.,

2012). Sea ice helps to protect shorelines from erosion, and its reduction has

accelerated thermal and physical weathering of the coastal interface, threatening

infrastructure and municipal services (Overeem et al., 2011; Andrachuk and Smit,

2012). Change in sea ice also threatens communities that use sea ice as a platform for

hunting, travelling and fishing (Nichols et al., 2004).

                                              8
2.1.3 Marine Ecosystems

   Sea ice is a dominant habitat for arctic marine environments. Observed and

predicted changes to sea ice distribution and extent in the growing season will likely

shift the balance between ice algae, phytoplankton, and krill that form that base of arctic

marine food webs (Larsen et al., 2014). At lower trophic levels, these changes will affect

the duration, magnitude and species composition of primary and secondary production

on which arctic food webs are based (Larsen et al., 2014). While productivity may

increase due to more light and thus energy being available, the seasonal timing of sea

ice freeze and thaw is the main factor for the primary production on which marine arctic

ecosystems are based (Moore & Huntington, 2008; Van Hemert et al., 2015; Larsen et

al., 2014; Laidre et al, 2008). These changes at lower trophic levels could lead to

trophic decoupling and cascades, negatively impacting species at higher trophic levels

(Moore & Huntington, 2008; Van Hemert et al. 2015). Sea ice provides habitat for

numerous marine species at all trophic levels, including a number of charismatic

megafauna like polar bears (Ursus maritimus), beluga whale, and walrus (Odobenus

rosmarus), that depend on sea ice as a platform for various life processes such as

hunting, resting and reproduction (Moore & Huntington, 2008; Laidre et al., 2008;

Larsen et al., 2014; Van Hemert et al., 2015). Although arctic species are well adapted

to the high interannual variability of the climate in the region, the large unidirectional

changes being observed and predicted by climate change models leading to loss of sea

ice may overwhelm species resilience (Moore & Huntington, 2008).

                                              9
2.1.4 Terrestrial Ecosystems

       Terrestrial ecosystems in the Arctic have begun to be affected by the various

biophysical change caused by anthropogenic climate changes, with phenological

responses attributable to warming apparent in most (Larsen et al., 2014). The land

adjacent to the Beaufort Sea is exhibiting some of the greatest positive changes in plant

productivity seen in the Arctic, driven by dramatic changes in temperature (Larsen et al.,

2014). Northward movement of the tree line is associated with increased summer

temperatures, and while the effect is difficult to predict, up to 50% of tundra

environments are expected to be replaced by forest by 2100 (Callaghan et al., 2011).

This dramatic shift in ecosystem is especially relevant for Tuktoyaktuk, which sits just

north of the treeline.

       Increased summer temperatures and associated decreases in seasonality may

benefit some species through greater primary productivity, lower thermal stress, lower

energy burdens, longer reproductive seasons, and increased offspring survivability

(Barton & Zalewski, 2007; Hersteinsson & MacDonald, 1992; Gallant et al., 2012).

Increased temperature and precipitation have a number of negative implications for

larger mammals as well. Declines in caribou and other large ungulates like muskox

have been linked in part to climate warming, and can be attributed to increases in rain-

on-snow events that restrict access to forage (Vors & Boyce, 2009; Larsen et al., 2015).

It has also been proposed that warming induced trophic mismatches between forage

and calving has and may continue to play a role in declines in caribou populations (Vors

                                             10
& Boyce, 2009). The plight of these species that are highly important for local

ecosystems and Inuit communities highlights the need for more studies to understand

the complex interplay of climate change effects.

2.2 Beluga Ecology and Biology

   The beluga or white whale (Delphinapterus leucas), known locally in the Beaufort

Sea as qilalugaq, is a toothed whale found throughout the Arctic (DFO, 2000). Beluga

are distinct for their lack of dorsal fin and large forehead, or melon, as well as their

characteristic white colour as adults (DFO, 2000). Calves, or nalungiait, are born light to

dark grey in colour, 1.5m in length, and 50-80kg in weight, and grow to an average 4.3m

and 1500-2000kg as adult males, or anguhalluit (DFO, 2000). Adult females, or

nalungialiit, are slightly smaller, averaging 3.8m in length. Beluga lose all their skin

pigment around the age of 7-9 years (DFO, 2000). The diet of Beluga has been inferred

by examining stomach content, fatty acids profiles, and analysing nitrogen stable

isotopes of harvested whales, due to the difficulty of direct observation of feeding

behaviour in the wild (Loseto et al., 2009; Matley, Fisk, & Dick, 2015; Quakenbush et

al., 2017).

   There are a number of populations of Beluga in the Canadian Arctic, and each

migrate significant distances throughout the year. Sea ice conditions are believed to be

the primary factor influencing the timing of migration, whereby beluga move out of

seasonally ice covered regions before the fall freeze, and move into regions after ice

break up in the spring (Asselin et al., 2012; Heide-Jørgensen, 2010). The Beaufort Sea

population winters in the Bering Sea, where they interact with populations that summer

                                              11
in Bristol Bay, Norton Sound and the Eastern Chukchi Sea (Citta et al., 2017). Studies

estimate the population at 20,000-40,000 individuals, although the current population

size is likely larger, and is considered to be stable or increasing (DFO, 2002; Harwood &

Kingsley, 2013). Norton and Harwood (1986) indicate the Beaufort population migrates

east along the north coast of Alaska in spring, following the seaward edge of land-fast

ice (DFO, 2002). Visual, aerial, and satellite tracking indicates that the population then

concentrates in the Mackenzie estuary in the summer, with segments of the population

moving offshore, or further east into the Amundsen Gulf and Viscount Melville Sound

areas by late summer (DFO, 2002). Laidre et al. (2008) notes that Beaufort beluga

prefer heavy sea ice cover and deep water, but they are also believed to use ice edges

for foraging, avoiding predation from killer whales, and for refuge in windy conditions

(Harwood & Kingsley, 2013; Harwood et al., 2002; Hornby et al., 2016). Laidre et al.

(2008) also believes beluga to be resilient to climatic changes and reductions in sea ice,

and several observations support this theory (Asselin et al., 2012; Heide-Jørgensen,

2010). Although the ice adapted arctic cod is a primary prey species, beluga are known

to prey on a wide range of species, which they can target based on changing

abundance (DFO, 2002). However, the observed declines in beluga body condition over

the last few decades indicate a possible effect of beluga switching between less

favourable prey species (Harwood, Kingsley, & Smith, 2014; Choy, 2014; Choy et al.,

2017). Ice edges are noted to have high primary productivity and concentrations of prey,

and observations indicate that beluga may be increasingly taking advantage of these

structures (Asselin et al., 2012). Beluga are also increasingly abundant offshore in the

Beaufort during ice free periods (Harwood & Kingsley, 2013). It is believed that the

                                            12
whales may be taking advantage of greater pelagic marine productivity predicted by

climate change models, or are less deterred from the area due to significant decreases

in disruptive industrial activity (Harwood & Kingsley, 2013).

       In addition to climatic stressors, Beluga are increasingly at risk from pollutants in

the arctic environment. Pacyna et al. (2006) indicates that anthropogenic mercury from

industrial activity, transported via the atmosphere and hydrosphere from populated

areas, has increased naturally occurring mercury concentrations throughout the world

(Krey, Ostertag & Chan, 2015). Mercury is taken up by organisms through their diet,

accumulates within body tissue, and biomagnifies through trophic levels (Krey et al.,

2015; Loseto et al., 2008). As arctic marine predators, belugas can accumulate high

levels of mercury in their body tissue, potentially affecting their health and the health of

polar bears and Inuit who hunt them (Krey et al., 2015; Loseto et al., 2008). Clarkson

and Magos (2006) note that acute mercury poisoning affects the kidneys of mammals,

while chronic exposure can cause permanent damage to the central nervous system

(Krey et al., 2015). Persistent organic pollutants like dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

(DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), and

chlordane are also chemicals of concern in Beluga (Kuhnlein & Chan, 2000; Ostertag et

al., 2009).

       The anthropogenic contaminants that beluga are exposed to in the Arctic

represent a potential threat to the health of the animals themselves and the Inuit that

rely on them for subsistence. Studies of biomarkers indicate that mercury levels in

Beaufort beluga may be at or above neurotoxic thresholds, which can lead to

neurobehavioral change, impacting the survival of animals (Ostertag et al., 2014; Krey

                                             13
et al., 2015). However, it is noted that the actual effects of mercury toxicity on animals in

the wild are difficult to determine, and that more studies are needed for effective risk

assessment (Ostertag et al., 2014; Krey et al., 2015).

       Modern day hunts in the region average around 180-190 whales removed from

the stock each year, representing less than 1% of the conservatively estimated

population of around 20,000 individuals (DFO, 2000; Harwood et al., 2002). McGhee

(1988) notes that evidence of beluga whale hunting in the western Arctic extends back

at least 500 years (DFO, 2000). With the rate of modern harvesting well under the

sustainable take of 2-3% per year and the ongoing presence of large, mature beluga

despite centuries of harvest, it is safe to assume that subsistence harvesting is not a

threat to beluga populations (Harwood et al., 2002; DFO, 2000).

2.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge

   There has been widespread recognition of the existence of numerous knowledge

systems amongst various groups in human society (Berkes, 2008; Raymond et al.,

2010). Knowledge systems can be distinguished from one another by characteristics

such as the level of formal processes used to generate the knowledge, extent of

expertise, extent to which knowledge is articulated or available to others, and the extent

to which knowledge is embedded in and reflects traditional cultural rules and norms

derived from generations of past experience (Raymond et al., 2010). Indigenous groups

within states typically have knowledge systems that are distinct from the predominant

knowledge systems of the settler or colonial societies in which they are embedded.

Indigenous, or traditional knowledge, is a body of knowledge, skills, and values

                                             14
characterized in particular by being unique to a particular indigenous group, informal,

highly localized, embedded with values and cosmology, and passed down through inter-

generational transfer (Warren et al., 1995 in Raymond et al., 2010). ‘Local knowledge’

differs from traditional knowledge in that it borne out of more recent human interactions

with the environment, as opposed to being embedded in deeper and older cultural

practices (Raymond et al., 2010).

   Traditional ecological knowledge, or TEK, is a subset of traditional knowledge that

pertains more specifically to human interactions with, and knowledge of the biophysical

environment (Berkes, 2008; Berkes, 2009; Wenzel, 1999; Usher, 2000). TEK is more

than just facts or knowledge about the environment. Some scholars note that it also

includes practices and beliefs, while others divide TEK into factual/rational knowledge

about the environment, factual knowledge about the use of the environment, culturally

based moral and ethical value statements, and culturally based cosmology (Berkes,

2008; Nadasdy, 1999; Reo & Whyte, 2012; Usher, 2000). The division of TEK into these

categories have assisted in efforts to bring together TEK and scientific knowledge, but

critics argue that the division of factual TEK away from its holistic nature and cultural

and local context can cause problems (Usher, 2000; Nadasy, 1999; Berkes, 2008;

Tester & Irniq, 2012). TEK is considered to be multi-faceted and holistic, imbedded with

values and beliefs about the environment beyond simple facts (Berkes, 2008; Nadasdy,

1999; Reo & Whyte, 2012; Usher, 2000). This holistic approach to knowledge adds a

dimension of complexity that continues to challenge efforts seeking to compare,

integrate or equate these knowledge types with western, reductionist knowledge types.

                                             15
Politics play an important role in the relationships between different knowledge

systems and the societies that generate them. Interactions between colonial powers

and myriad indigenous cultures throughout the world have highlighted how knowledge

has and continues to play a central role in how power imbalances are developed and

perpetuated. Even the term “traditional” in the context of traditional knowledge is

considered by some scholars to negatively imply static and unchanging, as an antonym

of modern (Berkes, 2008). This is one of the more problematic aspects of the term, and

has led to debate regarding contemporary knowledge being considered part of TK. The

adaptive and cumulative nature of TK means that new knowledge is incorporated into

the old to produce new insights; the phenomena of adopting new technology is not by

any means unique to recent times (Aporta & Higgs, 2005; Berkes, 2009). The

perception and politics of “traditional” Inuit culture is essentially a frozen, arbitrary image

drawn from early European contact literature, when in fact Inuit culture continues to

change and adapt to this day (Wenzel, 1991; Aporta & Higgs, 2005). This notion of Inuit

culture has been used to de-value Inuit knowledge in the past, particularly in the

important area of wildlife management of subsistence species such as caribou (Usher,

2004).

         Modern wildlife management has moved towards a more equal integration of

scientific and traditional knowledge, with widespread use of co-management

arrangements in the Arctic (Usher, 2000; Wenzel, 2004). However, constructive

integration of knowledge systems continues to be challenged by the epistemological

differences between them (Usher, 2000). That being said, problems with integration are

noted to be more about the need for greater mutual understanding between knowledge

                                              16
holders than some inherent incompatibility, but power dynamics continue to play an

important role in knowledge integration, where decisions regarding what constitutes

“useful”, what knowledge is used or privileged, and final decisions about laws are

usually in the hands of non-Inuit (Tyrell, 2007; Raymond et al., 2010; Berkes, 1993;

Nadasy, 1999; Tester and Irniq, 2008).

2.3.1 TEK of Arctic Wildlife

       TEK has been studied in various contexts throughout the Arctic as an area of

inquiry. Documentation of TEK has been noted to extend back to some of the earliest

European explorers like Boas, Jenness, Stefansson, and Rasmussen, who described

Inuit knowledge of local ecology (Wenzel, 1999). Boas, for example, examined the

relationship between sea ice type, ringed seal abundance, and Inuit settlement patterns

in one of the earliest non-Inuit inquiry into TEK (Wenzel, 1999). Since the 1970s, TEK

has come to form a significant component of cultural ecological research in the Arctic,

as well as a central ethical and information role in interactions with researchers

(Wenzel, 1999). Inuit TEK of various species has been examined throughout the

Canadian Arctic. TEK of eider ducks have been examined by Nakashima (1990) in

northern Quebec, polar bear by Wenzel (1983) in the Northwest Territories, beluga by

Huntington (1999) and Mymrin & Huntington (1999) in Alaska and Russia, Greenland

shark by Idrobo and Berkes (2012) in Pangnirtung, caribou by Ferguson & Messier

(1997) in the Northwest Territories and Baffin Island, and ringed seal by Furgal, Innes, &

Kovacs (2002) in Arctic Bay. These studies vary widely in the aspects of TEK that they

focus on examining. Scholars like Idrobo and Berkes (2012) examined how TEK is

                                            17
produced, while others like Wenzel (1983) examined hunting strategies and broader

values and beliefs. Many TEK studies, like Huntington (1999), Mymrin and Huntington

(1999), Ferguson & Messier (1997), Honeyman et al., (2016), focus primarily or entirely

on the factual/rational aspects of TEK, such as wildlife behaviour and ecology. Scholars

like Usher (2000) and Tester & Irniq (2008) have noted that the focus on this area of

TEK can be attributed in part to its ease of access, and for its similarity to scientific data

that can be more easily integrated into management frameworks. While some scholars

like Ferguson & Messier (1997) have examined TEK in the context of change in a

species over time, there remains few or no studies of specific bodies of TEK of wildlife

species in the explicit context of climate change. Rather, scholars like Pearce et al.,

(2010; 2015) and Ford et al. (2007) have examined TEK in the context of climate

change as an aspect of adaptive capacity, and the role it plays in the context of

vulnerability and adaptation. Other scholars, like Wenzel (2009) have examined how

subsistence hunting and sharing structures, are changing in response to climate

change, and Tyrrell (2006) has documented differences in Inuit and non-Inuit knowledge

and perspectives on changing polar numbers in the context of climate change. This

area of inquiry into bodies of TEK is not without its controversies, such as the

methodological approaches utilized to conduct the research, use of the term TEK itself,

neo-colonial ethical and moral considerations, and that non-Inuit are typically the

primary investigators of Inuit TEK (Nadasdy, 1999; Davis & Wagner, 2003; Fernandez-

Giminez, Huntington, & Frost, 2006; Wenzel, 1999).

       TEK of beluga has been documented explicitly in the academic literature in

Russia, Alaska, and Nunavik, examining knowledge from a number of communities of

                                              18
beluga populations in the Eastern Chukchi and Northern Bering Sea, and Nunavik in

eastern Canada (Huntington, 1999; Mymrin & Huntington, 1999; Breton-Honeyman et

al., 2016). These studies examined TEK of the natural history of beluga, including

distribution, migration, abundance, feeding, calving, and molting, and response to

anthropogenic disturbance. Several other grey literature studies have been conducted

on TEK of beluga, both in the ISR and elsewhere in the Canadian Arctic. Two broad

traditional knowledge studies in the ISR have included beluga within their scope. Hart &

Amos (2004) examined the hunting and processing of beluga whales, as well as the

changes in technology associated with the hunt over time. A second traditional

knowledge study undertaken to fulfill the obligations of a proposed natural gas pipeline

in the Mackenzie Delta region included knowledge and use of beluga whale in the

region within its scope (Inuuvik, Tuktuuyaqtuuq, and Akłarvik Community

Corporations,2006). Byers and Roberts (1995) conducted work in the ISR on TEK of

beluga more specifically by documenting TEK of beluga at the time in Tuktoyaktuk,

Aklavik and Inuvik, and reviewing the historical context of the beluga hunt. The study

examines various facets of Inuvialuit TEK of beluga ecology including movement,

reproduction, behaviour, and diet, as well as brief descriptions of hunting practices and

consumption practices. A study conducted by Remnant and Thomas (1992) focused on

Inuit TEK of beluga and narwhal distribution and biology in seven communities in the

high eastern Canadian Arctic. However, only two of these four grey literature studies are

publically available online, limiting their access to a wider audience.

                                             19
2.4 TEK and Wildlife Co-Management

       The ongoing integration of TEK and scientific knowledge in wildlife management

continues to play a central role in improvements to Inuit/federal relationships in the

Arctic, and improvement of wildlife management in the north. TEK has been used to

understand wildlife and the biophysical environment more completely and in greater

detail than would be possible with scientific knowledge alone (Berkes, 2009; Berkes,

2001; Armitage et al., 2009). This is due in part to the continual evolution of TEK

through “learning-by-doing, experimenting, and knowledge building” through locally

relevant human interactions with the land and resources (Berkes, 2009). In bringing

together different knowledge holders, co-management arrangements necessitate co-

production of knowledge from a plurality of knowledge systems. (Dale & Armitage,

2011). This co-production aims to improve understandings of complex natural systems

and address problems within those systems better than with one knowledge system in

isolation (Armitage et al., 2011; Dale & Armitage, 2011). Wildlife management in the

north especially is challenged by incomplete information particularly about species’ life

histories and distribution, and is challenged further by the climatic changes that are

continuing to alter the distribution, migration, abundance, reproductive success, prey

abundance, and survival of many species (Breton-Honeyman, Furgal, & Hammill, 2016).

In addition to practical improvements of co-management, inclusion of TEK is considered

to improve trust building and social learning between parties (Dale & Armitage, 2011).

       While the inclusion of TEK in co-management arrangements is generally

considered to result in “better, more equitable, flexible, or sustainable decisions,....there

are significant challenges and risks associated with knowledge inclusion” (Dale &

                                             20
Armitage, p.441 2011). Engagement of TEK and TEK holders is represented by a

spectrum of interactions, ranging from token consultation to legitimate devolution of

power to Inuit rights-holders. It has been noted that at worst, token engagement with

TEK is only undertaken because it is “politically expedient” to do so, and there is a

“hidden discourse” of racial and political reasons little discussed through official

channels on why TEK and science are sometimes seen to be at loggerheads (Nadasdy,

p.3 1999). Effective engagement with TEK in co-management goes far beyond simply

including it as additional data that can be slotted into place. The most democratic form

of management involves maximizing flows of information between participants in

equitable arrangements characterized by genuine power sharing, while avoiding

intentional or unintentional neo-colonial forms of exploitation and co-optation (Nadasdy,

1999; Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2006).

       Biological studies, followed by studies on management/co-management make up

much of the literature on beluga (Breton-Honeyman et al., 2016). While TEK of beluga

has been used opportunistically in biological studies, the explicit academic study and

documentation of TEK of beluga in the Arctic has been limited to a handful of studies in

the eastern Chukchi and northern Bering Seas, on knowledge from a number of

communities in Alaska and Russia (Huntington, 1999; Mymrin & Huntington, 1999).

These studies examined TEK of the natural history of beluga, including distribution,

migration, abundance, feeding, calving, and molting, and response to anthropogenic

disturbance. Where grey literature on TEK of beluga exists, it is often in the form of

narrowly disseminated hard copy reports that are not publically accessible online.

Outside of these studies, Inuit knowledge of beluga has contributed greatly to the

                                             21
understanding and management of the species in co-management settings, but the

published literature does not reflect this (Breton-Honeyman et al., 2016). This lack of

documentation has real implications for the visibility of Inuit perspectives, and for the

equitability of co-management arrangements that draw on bodies of scholarship

dominated by scientific studies. Henry Huntington notes,

      “The use of TEK is often hindered because it is unavailable to or

      considered irrelevant by a broad audience. In the absence of wide access,

      the influence of TEK extends only as far as the influence of those who hold

      it. Holders of TEK may be able to speak, and speak forcefully, at public

      hearings and in other fora, but the undocumented information is not

      portable, and the influence of such spoken testimony diminishes with

      distance in time and space. Documentation is one means by which TEK

      can be made more accessible, allowing it to be considered in parallel with

      other information, typically from scientific studies, that is written.”

      (Huntington, p.238, 1998).

Inuit and scholars alike have noted that management of beluga that are so important to

some Inuit communities demands improved study of TEK (Huntington, 1999; Mymrin &

Huntington, 1999; Breton-Honeyman, Furgal, & Hammill, 2016).

2.4.1 Co-Management Frameworks

       There are a number of prominent co-management arrangement structures that

are utilized in the Canadian Arctic to manage wildlife species. These frameworks are a

response to the need to address complex socio-ecological management dilemmas

                                             22
where a multiplicity of actors are involved (Armitage et al., 2009). Some key features of

co-management frameworks include their ability to learn from and adapt to socio-

ecological feedbacks from the system of interest, and to develop vertical and horizontal

linkages between local, regional, national, and international institutions (Armitage et al.,

2009; Berkes & Jolly, 2001). The adaptive and flexible nature of co-management

arrangements makes them “suited to conditions of uncertainty and conflict” (Armitage et

al., 2009). Learning is a key factor to this ability, whereby various types of knowledge

from a range of actors can be brought together through knowledge co-production to

continuously improve understandings of the system of interest (Dale & Armitage, 2011).

This also has the added benefit of creating a better understanding than could be

achieved by one source of knowledge alone, whilst fostering trust and understanding

between actors (Armitage et al., 2011; Dale & Armitage, 2011).

                                             23
Chapter 3 - Case Study

       This chapter serves to situate the research within its geographical and socio-

cultural context, through a brief description of Inuvialuit, the Inuvialuit Settlement Area

(ISR), and the community of Tuktoyaktuk.

3.1 Inuvialuit

       Inuvialuit, as with other contemporary Inuit populations, share common ancestry

with the Thule migration that moved west to east across the Arctic from Alaska

sometime around 1000 C.E. (Damas, 2002, p.6). However, the notable

“biogeographical” richness of what is now the Inuvialuit Settlement Region supported a

unique culture with high population densities distinct within the Arctic (Morrison, 1997,

p.33). Approximately 2500 ancestral Inuvialuit known as the Siglit occupied what is now

the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) in 6-8 distinct groups prior to contact with

European explorers (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 2015). From 1789 to 1840,

interactions with early explorers like Mackenzie and Franklin, and the diseases and

trade goods that accompanied them, stimulated cultural and demographic changes

among the Inuvialuit (Morrison, 1997, p.44). Measles epidemics in 1900 and 1902

further reduced populations in the area, and by 1910 there were only approximately 260

inhabitants, half of whom were recent migrants from Alaska (Usher, 1971).

3.2 The Inuvialuit Settlement Region

       Located in the western Canadian Arctic, the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR)

was created by the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) and the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit)

                                             24
Claims Settlement Act on June 5, 1984. The agreements and the creation of the ISR

resulted from 10 years of negotiation between the Inuvialuit, represented by the

Committee for the Original People’s Entitlement (COPE), a small Inuvialuit volunteer

organization originally formed to safeguard the environmental and economic interests of

First Nations of the Mackenzie Delta/ Beaufort Sea area, and the Government of

Canada (Saku & Bone, 2000). The region, home to approximately 10,000 residents

spread across the six communities of Aklavik, Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, Paulatuk,

Ulukhaktok, and Sachs Harbour, covers 906,430 km2, of which the Inuvialuit own

90,643km2, with 77,694km2 of surface rights and both surface and sub-surface rights on

the other 12,949 km2 (Fast, Mathias, Banias, 2001). The aims of the agreements were

to “preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values within a changing northern society, to

enable the Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participants in the northern and

national economy and society and to protect and preserve the arctic wildlife,

environment and biological productivity and for the payment to the Inuvialuit of certain

compensation” (Government of Canada, 1984). The communities of the ISR have

majority Inuvialuit populations that are highly dependent on the wildlife resources of the

area for subsistence hunting, with public administration, sporadic resource development

and exploration and limited tourism providing other economic opportunities (Pearce, et

al., 2011).

                                             25
Figure 3.1: Location of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region and Tuktoyaktuk, NT. (Inuvialuit

Cultural Resource Centre, 2017)

       The contemporary governance of the ISR falls under a number of corporate and

co-management structures. The management and distribution of benefits from the IFA

rests with the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC) (Fast et al., 2001). The Inuvialuit

Land, Investment, Petroleum and Development Corporations, along with six Community

Corporations from each of the major communities in the ISR, complete the corporate

                                             26
structure under the IRC. Resources within the ISR are co-managed by the Inuvialuit and

the Canadian, Northwest Territories and Yukon governments through five organizations,

including the Inuvialuit Game Council, Environmental Impact Screening Committee,

Environmental Impact Review Board, Wildlife Management Advisory Council (WMAC)

(NT), and Fisheries Joint Management Committee (Fast et al., 2001). In regards to

wildlife management, the WMAC “has jurisdiction over the adjacent nearshore and

offshore waters of the ISR related to wildlife policy and the management, regulation and

administration of wildlife, habitat and harvesting”, the FJMC administers “rights and

obligations relating to fisheries under the IFA, and [advises] the Fisheries Minister on

the management of fisheries in the region”, and the six Hunter and Trapper Committees

represent the interests of their respective communities (Fast et al., p.190, 2001).

However, federal and territorial ministers have the ultimate decision in wildlife

management, based on the advisement of the above mentioned joint Inuvialuit-

government committees (Fast et al., 2001).

3.3 Tuktoyaktuk, NT

       Located in the Mackenzie River Delta in the northwest corner of the Northwest

Territories, Tuktoyaktuk or “Tuk” (69°26′34″N 133°01′52″W), traditionally known as

Tuktuujaartuq in Inuvialuktun, is one of the major population centers within the ISR

(Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 2015). As of the 2011 population census, the hamlet

had 855 residents, of whom 52.5% were men and 47.5% were women (Statistics

Canada, 2017). Inuvialuit settled in the area after the Hudson’s Bay Company

established Port Brabant in the mid 1930s to the service the fur trade that was the

primary economic activity of the time (Pool, 2015). The 1950s brought increased

                                             27
economic opportunity for the community with jobs in the construction and operation of a

number of Distant Early Warning (DEW) line radar stations, built to detect Soviet

bombers flying over the Arctic. The “Bar-3” station, a mid-sized radar facility, was built at

Tuk in the mid 1950s (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 2007). Oil and gas exploration

around the same time discovered large reserves within the ISR, and rapid development

proceeded in the 1960s as DEW lines were being decommissioned (Inuvialuit Regional

Corporation, 2007). The oil and gas boom of the 60s and 70s brought much needed

employment and money to the region, but the Inuvialuit became concerned by the lack

of control they had over development, in addition to mounting environment degradation

and the disruption of cultural practices such as trapping and hunting (Inuvialuit Regional

Corporation, 2007). Pushback from Tuk residents over seismic testing off the coast,

mobilized all the ISR communities against a proposed pipeline and demand for greater

control over development in their traditional territory paved the way for the IFA land

claim (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 2007). Concerns for wildlife, particularly beluga,

and the wider marine environment in the context of industrial activity led to the creation

of the Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Area (TNMPA), Canada’s first arctic MPA, in

the area in 2010 (see figure 3.3) (Harwood et al., 2014). The TNMPA is made up of

three areas in the Mackenzie Delta, include including the Niaqunnaq MPA, Okeevik

MPA, and Kittigaryuit MPA (see figure 3.3) (Harwood et al., 2014). The current major

economic prospect in the area is the 137 kilometer expansion of the Dempster highway

that would see its terminus extended from Inuvik to Tuk (CBC, 2014). The extension is

expected to be completed by 2017, at which time Tuk will be able to realize the benefits

of road access to good and services previously only accessible by air or water.

                                             28
You can also read