INTRODUCTION
Whaling has been important to Inuit in the Arctic since prehistoric times (McCartney
1995, Stoker and Krupnik 1993, Bockstoce, 1986). Narwhal and beluga whales have
been the primary focus of Inuit whale hunting in the Canadian Arctic since commercial
whaling ended in this area in the early 1900's, however, the hunting of bowhead whales
has recently been resumed in both the eastern and western Canadian Arctic.
Whaling in the Canadian Arctic is currently managed under the terms of 3 separate land
claim agreements (Fig. 1). The James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement (Editeur
officiel du Quebec 1976), the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (Anonymous 1984) and the
Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Anonymous 1993). The provisions of the James Bay
and Northern Quebec Agreement as they pertain to resource development in northern
Quebec have been reviewed by Mainville (1992) and Berkes (1989) reviewed issues
related to co-management under this agreement. Various aspects of the co-
management of resources under the terms of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement have been
reviewed by Doubleday (1989), Bailey et al (1995) and Robinson and Binder (1992).
Much less has been written on the matter of management of resources under the terms
of the Nunavut Agreement since this agreement is, in many ways, just beginning to be
implemented.
This paper compares the provisions of the three land claim agreements in the Canadian
Arctic as they relate to whaling by Inuit and the role of Inuit in the management of whale
stocks. The obligations of the Government of Canada resulting from these agreements
and the co-management structures established under the terms of the agreements for
the management of wildlife in the Canadian Arctic are also discussed. Finally, the
Government of Canada's policy on whaling and the relationship of this policy to the
International Whaling Commission (IWC), the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea, the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission and the North Atlantic Marine
Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) is presented.
LAND CLAIM AGREEMENTS
Land claim agreements in Canada are based on Aboriginal peoples' traditional use and
occupancy of the land. Under these complex legal arrangements Aboriginal peoples
exchange their undefined rights and title to lands and resources for defined rights
protected by the Constitution of Canada (Anonymous 1981a). Land claim agreements
presently cover almost all of the Canadian Arctic and adjacent marine waters (Fig. 1).
The remaining areas of the Arctic, including marine areas, are currently under
negotiation.
The desire for settlement of land claims in the Canadian Arctic stems, on one hand,
from the Government's concern for certainty as a precursor for development in the
north and from political commitments with respect to social justice for Native citizens.
On the other hand, the objectives of the Native peoples in the context of land claim
negotiations have been related primarily to self determination and the preservation of
their way of life (Doubleday 1989).
The three land claim agreements in the Canadian Arctic deal with rights, titles and
interests to land providing varying degrees of land ownership as well as access by non-
beneficiaries. There are specified surface and subsurface rights along with boards and
committees to share land management and land use planning (Table 1).
They also deal with future development, monetary compensation and environmental
and social impact assessment processes (Editeur officiel du Quebec 1976,
Anonymous 1984 and Anonymous 1993).
With regard to wildlife resources, there is no ownership established by land claim
agreements but rather, varying degrees of constitutionally protected priority and access
together with the establishment of co-management bodies and funding for research for
resource use planning. With respect to the management of whales, it is important to
note that all three of the land claim agreements have conservation as the principle
basis of management and that the implementation of these agreements has resulted in
a greater degree of community based decision making and a move towards
management to meet the needs of communities.
The important elements of the three land claim agreements as they relate to whaling
are summarized in Table 2 in a manner that illustrates the evolution of these
agreements over a period of 18 years.
TABLE 2. LAND CLAIMS AND THE MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE
Under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement harvest levels are guaranteed
(where conservation permits) at a fixed level with respect to personal and community
use, determined shortly after the agreement was signed. These levels usually reflect
the minimum allowable take. In the case of the Inuvialuit Agreement, beneficiaries of
the agreement have preferential access for all species of marine mammals. Here,
access is not limited to food fisheries and surplus is available for commercial purposes.
Finally, under the terms of the Nunavut Agreement, the co-management board
determines need, decides if any surplus is available for commercial purposes and
decides on the allocation of resources.
Table 2. also compares features of these agreements dealing with the sharing of
management responsibilities or co-management. This relates to the authority of co-
management structures, that is, the boards or committees comprised of equal numbers
of Aboriginal and Government officials as established by the agreements, and the
authority of the Minister. Under the terms of the James Bay Northern Quebec
Agreement, the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee submits
recommendations to the Minister but the Minister retains full discretion on all matters
related to wildlife management. Under the terms of the Inuvialuit Agreement, the
Fisheries Joint Management Committee is still only empowered to make
recommendations, however, the authority of the Minister in this case is more limited.
He may vary or reject recommendations of the Joint Management Committee on the
basis of conservation and public safety.
Lastly, under the terms of the Nunavut Agreement, the Nunavut Wildlife Management
Board makes decisions with respect to wildlife management. This is very different from
the two other agreements where the co-management boards only make
recommendations. The Minister in this case may vary or reject the Nunavut Wildlife
Management Board decisions on the basis of conservation and public safety.
The final point that needs to be made in comparing those aspects of the three
agreements is that as you go from the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement to the
Inuvialuit Agreement and then to the Nunavut Agreement, there is less emphasis on the
overall immediate financial benefit provided to beneficiaries but an increasing provision
for the funding of research to support wildlife management.
In summary, these three land claim agreements provide varying degrees of
constitutionally protected access, the establishment of co-management bodies with
varying responsibilities and funding for research for resource use planning. The
variations between the claims is a reflection of the priorities and aspirations of the Inuit
groups and the political climate at the time of their signature.
WHALING AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LAND CLAIM AGREEMENTS
Under the terms of the agreements, the rights of access apply to marine mammals.
However, It is significant to note that, while the Inuvialuit settlement area includes a
large marine area (Anonymous 1984) and the rights under the Nunavut Agreement are
applicable to internal marine waters in Canada (Anonymous 1993), the territory of the
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement does not include marine waters (Editeur
officiel du Quebec 1976). This makes the references in the James Bay Northern
Quebec Agreement to marine mammals interesting because the territories covered by
agreement do not include the marine waters of James Bay, Hudson Bay, Davis Strait or
Ungava Bay. The terms of the agreement however, have been used to develop co-
management regimes for the harvesting of beluga whales in these waters by the Inuit of
northern Quebec (Anonymous 1995).
While it was initially intended that the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement would
include these areas, because of the political uncertainty related to Federal/Provincial
jurisdiction of fisheries along the coast of Quebec, it was agreed during the negotiations
that the offshore areas would be dealt with separately at a later time. However, the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans which has the legislative responsibility for the
management of marine mammals in Canada, and the Inuit of northern Quebec have
developed a co-management regime for the management of marine mammal
populations of northern Quebec.
The co-management framework for beluga in northern Quebec initiated following the
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has been strengthened since 1992 by
implementation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Aboriginal Fisheries
Strategy (Anonymous 1994) which provides for the signature of Fisheries Agreements
with communities, thereby securing their participation in the definition and
implementation of management and conservation initiatives. For beluga whales this
has included the protection of females with calves and juveniles, the protection of the
Whale River estuary summering area by a sanctuary closed to hunting and a seasonal
closure of Ungava Bay. In northern Quebec the management of whaling is likely to
change significantly with the future settlement of the Quebec Inuit offshore claim. This
agreement which is currently under negotiation will likely contain provisions for the
management of marine mammals more similar to those of the Nunavut Agreement
signed in 1993.
In the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, under the terms of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement,
the Fisheries Joint Management Committee assumed responsibility for a beluga
monitoring program which provides a record of catches including loss rates, and
program for the taking of biological samples. The Fisheries Joint Management
Committee also prepared a beluga management plan for the Inuvialuit Settlement
Region (Anonymous 1991) which addressed the issues of maintaining a sustainable
harvest, conservation and protection, research and monitoring and education and
public awareness. This plan is updated every three years and is accompanied by
bylaws and guidelines established by the hunters and trappers' committees to ensure a
more efficient hunt, avoid harassment of the whales and provide research information.
Funding is available under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement for biological research and
harvest studies to provide the Fisheries Joint Management Committee with the
necessary data for managing stocks.
The present day Inuvialuit of the western Canadian Arctic are descended from Inuit
indigenous to the region as well as Alaskan immigrants moving to Canada in the first
half of the present century. Both the indigenous and immigrant groups possessed a
strong whaling tradition such that the bowhead whale has retained a significant cultural
value despite many years when no successful hunts took place (Freeman et al 1992).
In 1991, on the basis of a recommendation from the Fisheries Joint Management
Committee, for the first time in more than 25 years, a licence was issued to the
Inuvialuit for the hunting of a bowhead whale. Here, it is important to note that under
the terms of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, a licence to hunt bowhead is not specifically
required. However, in the spirit of cooperation with the Government, the Inuvialuit did
apply for a licence.
The historical, social and cultural context of the successful 1991 bowhead whale hunt in
the western Canadian Arctic have been described in detail by Freeman et al (1992).
The point that needs to be stressed however, is that requests for a licence to hunt
bowhead prior to implementation of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement were refused by the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. On the recommendation of the Fisheries Joint
Management Committee, licences to hunt bowhead whales were also issued in 1993
and in each year since. No bowhead were landed in the years 1993, 1994 or 1995,
however, one bowhead whale was landed at Shingle Point on the Canadian Beaufort
Sea coast on July 24, 1996. The 1991 Inuvialuit bowhead hunt represented the
successful culmination of many years of trying to secure government approval to hunt
this particular whale species since the last bowhead hunting licence was issued in the
1960's. Although licences were issued in the 1960's there are no records to indicate
that hunting actually occurred at that time.
In the western Arctic, the bowhead whale stock and one of the beluga whale stocks
harvested by the Inuvialuit are also harvested by Alaskans. The western Arctic
bowhead whale stock, which has increased since the end of commercial whaling in
1934 , is managed by the International Whaling Commission. The addition of one
whale taken by Canadian Inuit from this stock to the take of approximately 50 per year
by the Alaskans and perhaps a small number taken in the Chukotski Autonomous
Region of the Russian Federation does not pose a conservation concern since the total
take is well within the scientific estimate of replacement yield (International Whaling
Commission 1996a, see also earlier years). With regard to the beluga harvested by
both Canadian Inuit and Alaskans, a Joint Inuvialuit/Alaska Beluga Management
Committee was established to prepare an agreed management plan. Since the
combined take from this stock is not a conservation concern, the fact that this
management plan has not yet been approved is not critical.
The Nunavut Agreement is unique in that it specifically sets out a process for re-
establishing the traditional bowhead hunt and provides for the setting of a total
allowable harvest of at least one whale (Anonymous 1993). In December of 1995,
pursuant to the Agreement, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board decided to
establish a total allowable harvest of one bowhead whale for the Nunavut Settlement
Area for 1996. In February 1996, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans accepted the
Board's decision and a licence was issued in August of 1996. With the exception of an
unauthorized hunt in 1994, the last recorded hunt of an eastern Arctic bowhead whale
was in 1976. A subsistence hunt was carried on intermittently before then. After 1976
the Government of Canada discouraged the harvesting of bowhead whales to promote
the recovery of stocks which had been seriously depleted as a result of past
commercial whaling (Mitchell, 1977 and Mitchell and Reeves 1982). On August 17,
1996, under the terms of a management plan for the bowhead whales in the Nunavut
Settlement Area, prepared by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and approved
by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (Anonymous 1996), a bowhead whale was
landed near the community of Repulse Bay in the Northwest Territories.
In the eastern Arctic, because narwhal and one stock of beluga migrate between the
waters of Canada and Greenland and are harvested by Inuit in both countries, the
Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on Narwhal and Beluga was established under
the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
unpublished doc., 1989) to provide recommendations on research and management to
the governments of Canada and Greenland. In Canada, this Joint Commission is tied
to the co-management process primarily in three ways.
Firstly, one of the two Commissioners from each country is an Inuk. In the case of
Canada, this Commissioner is also the Chairman of the Nunavut Wildlife Management
Board. Secondly, the terms of reference for the Scientific Working Group of the Joint
Commission specify that Inuit traditional knowledge be incorporated in the development
of recommendations. Finally, recommendations from the Joint Commission are
considered by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
Clearly, these examples illustrate that Canadian Inuit, through the implementation of
their land claim agreements, have made significant progress in pursuing their
aspirations related to whaling. However, the move to co-management of whale stocks
in the Canadian Arctic as determined by the terms of the land claim agreements has
not, in all cases, been an easy transition (Richard and Pike 1993). Difficulties have
involved problems of language, cultural differences, the Inuit lack of understanding and
trust of scientific population surveys and government managers and scientists lack of
understanding of Inuit traditional knowledge. There is however, a general consensus
that the co-management of resources under the terms of land claim agreements in the
Arctic is working well (Berkes 1989, Richard and Pike 1993, Roberts 1996, Campbell
1996, Bailey et al 1995).
CANADA'S POLICY ON WHALING
The fundamental basis of Canada's policy on whaling is that whales are an important
source of food for Inuit and that whales and whaling are an important part of Inuit
culture. Since the end of commercial whaling in Canada in 1972 whaling has been
solely for aboriginal subsistence purposes. In addition to the land claim agreements
which provide constitutionally protected rights for Canadian Inuit to hunt and fish and
the co-management structures established by these agreements there are other factors
that combine to determine Canada's policy on whaling (Table 3).
Clearly, as with other fisheries, the concept of "sustainable utilization" and the
application of the "precautionary approach" as outlined in Principle 15 of the Rio
Declaration of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(see Caddy and Griffiths, 1995 for a review of the concepts of "sustainable utilization"
and "precautionary approach") should and do form a framework for the implementation
of Canada's policy on whaling within which the co-management structures make their
recommendations and decisions. Further, it is recognized that the implementation of
sustainable management regimes for whaling in the Canadian Arctic requires the
incorporation of Inuit traditional knowledge and community based decisions. Other
determinants of Canada's policy on whaling include the exclusive sovereign rights within
the Canadian 200 mile zone, and Canada's interpretation of Article 65 of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (United Nations 1993).
Canada was one of the original signatories to the 1946 International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling but in 1981, announced its intention to withdraw from the
Convention and from the International Whaling Commission in established thereunder
(Anonymous 1981b). The withdrawal became effective in 1982. Commercial whaling in
Canada ended on the west coast in 1967 and, in 1972, the Canadian Government
imposed a ban on commercial whaling on the Atlantic Coast. Canadian Inuit are
strongly opposed to Canada's rejoining the International Whaling Commission and view
the International Whaling Commission as an obstacle to the effective management of
whale stocks (Bell, 1993, Kuptana, 1994). Even though Canada has not been a
member of the IWC since 1982, Canadian scientists continue to contribute to the work
of its Scientific Committee. In addition, information on the status of narwhal and beluga
stocks in Canada and the levels of subsistence catches from these stocks is available
to the Scientific Committee. Canada also sends an observer delegation to the
meetings of the Commission.
Acknowledging that the International Whaling Commission is responsible for the
management of bowhead whaling, it is the position of the Government of Canada that
with regard to the harvesting of bowhead whales in Canada, its obligations in respect of
Article 65 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to "...work through
the appropriate international organizations for the conservation, management and study
of cetaceans." are met by working through the Scientific Committee of the International
Whaling Commission. With regard to narwhal and beluga, the position of the
Government of Canada is that the exclusive sovereign rights in respect of the
conservation, management and exploitation of all living resources within the Canadian
200 mile zone, include narwhal and beluga. For stocks of narwhal and beluga which
migrate between the waters of Canada and Greenland, in accordance with Article 65 of
the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Canada views the "appropriate international
organization" to be the Joint Commission for the Conservation and Management of
Narwhal and Beluga.
In summary, Canada's whaling policy is that, whaling in Canada is only for aboriginal
subsistence purposes and that the management of this whaling has as its basis the
recognition that whales and whaling are important to Inuit both as a source of food and
as a significant part of their culture. Further, the policy is that sustainable management
regimes for the utilization of these resources be developed with the incorporation of
Inuit traditional knowledge and community based decisions and the application of the
precautionary approach and that their implementation be based on the provisions of
land claim agreements, the exercise of Canadian sovereign rights and Article 65 of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Because of the recognition that whales are an important source of food for Inuit and
that whaling is culturally important, the Marine Mammal Regulations (Department of
Fisheries and Oceans 1993) made under the Canada Fisheries Act, as well as the
regulations which preceded the Marine Mammal Regulations,
provide that an Indian or Inuk other than a beneficiary of a land claim agreement, may
hunt for whales without a licence for food, social or ceremonial purposes except for
bowhead whales, right whales, narwhal and beluga in certain areas. Unlike, the
constitutionally guaranteed provisions of land claim agreements discussed above, this
regulation could unilaterally be changed by the Minister. This regulation is important in
the case of one of the Indian Bands on Vancouver Island who have not as yet settled a
land claim agreement but have expressed an interest in resuming their traditional hunt
of gray whales. Similarly, this regulation is applicable to the harvesting of whales by
Inuit in Labrador.
It is also important to note that notwithstanding a general provision in the Marine
Mammal Regulations for the issuance of licences for the hunting of whales, as a matter
of policy, licences are not issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for
whaling by non-aboriginal people. Occasionally, licences have been issued to a non-
aboriginal person married to an aboriginal person for the hunting of beluga whales
when such licences were required to provide food in support of the family.
CONSEQUENCES OF CANADA'S WHALING POLICY
On December 12, 1996, the Government of the United States of America certified
Canada under section 8 (known as the "Pelly Amendment") of the Fisherman's
Protective Act of 1967 (United States Congress 1978). This legislation authorizes the
President of the United States, on certification by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, to
ban the import into the U.S. of any products from any country whose nationals fish in a
manner that diminishes the effectiveness of any international fishery conservation
programme. Threats of certification by the Government of the USA also preceded the
1991 bowhead hunt in the western Arctic, however, certification did not occur at that
time. The taking of bowhead whales has also resulted in accusations from animal
rights and animal welfare groups opposed to the killing of whales, that Canada is a
pirate whaling nation (Barstow, 1996 and International Wildlife Coalition, 1993). On the
other hand, it has allowed the resumption of a traditional and culturally significant hunt
for Canadian Inuit.
The implementation of its policy on whaling has also caused the Government of
Canada to examine the possible benefits of joining an organization called the North
Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission established in 1992 by Norway, Iceland, the
Faroe Islands and Greenland. NAMMCO, as this Commission is called, was created
primarily because Norway and Iceland, dissatisfied with the International Whaling
Commission, saw the need for a North Atlantic institution to provide for rational
management of marine mammals, and to respond to pressures against marine
mammal harvests. The members also saw the need for a regionally focused
international organization to deal with small cetaceans which are not within the mandate
of the IWC, and with marine mammals other than whales, such as seals and walrus
(Sanderson, 1995).
Canada has been a formal observer at NAMMCO meetings since its inception, has
participated in the work of the Scientific Committee of NAMMCO and has recently
begun a process of consultation with Inuit groups concerning the possibility of Canada
joining this organization.
Acknowledgment
REFERENCES
Anonymous 1980. Canada's Policy on Whaling. Information sheet published by the Communications Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
Ottawa. I-HQ-80-13E.
Anonymous 1981a. In All Fairness A Native Claims Policy, Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1981, Cat. No. R15-1/1981, ISBN 0-662-51672-
9.
Anonymous 1981b. Communique No. 62. Canada Withdraws from the International Whaling Convention and Commission. Department of
External Affairs. June 26, 1981.
Anonymous, 1984. The Western Arctic Claim. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 1984.
Anonymous, 1991. Beaufort Sea Beluga Management Plan. Fisheries Joint Management Committee. 1991.
Anonymous, 1993. Agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Indian and
Northern Affairs Canada and the Tungavik.
Anonymous, 1994. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Policy for the Management of Aboriginal Fishing. October 3, 1994.
Anonymous, 1995. Draft Nunavik Beluga Five-Year Management Plan 1995-1999. Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Anonymous, 1996. Management Plan For Bowhead Whales in the Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA), 1996. Prepared by the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans (DFO) Central and Arctic Region and approved by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB).
Bailey, John L, et al.1995. Cooperative Wildlife Management Under the Western Inuvialuit Land Claim. In, J. A. Bissonette and P.R. Krausman, Eds.
Integrating People and Wildlife for a Sustainable Future. Proceedings of the first International Wildlife Management Congress. The Wildlife Society.
Bethesda. Md. ISBN 0-933564-12-0
Barstow, R. 1996. Letter from Robbins Barstow, Director Emeritus, Cetacean Society International, to Dr. Doubleday of the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, August 30, 1996.
Bell, R.K. 1993. Letter from Robert K. Bell, Chairman, Fisheries Joint Management Committee to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, May 26,
1993.
Berkes, F. 1989. Co-Management and the James Bay Agreement. In, Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries. New Directions for Improved
Management and Community Development. Edited by Evelyn Pinkerton. University of British Columbia Press. 1989.
Bockstoce, J. 1986. Whales, Ice, and Men: The History of Whaling in the Western Arctic. University of Washington Press. Seattle.
Caddy, J.F. and R.C. Griffiths. Living marine resources and their sustainable development. Some environmental and institutional perspectives. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper 353. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1996.
Campbell, T. 1996. Co-management of Aboriginal Resources. Information North. Vol. 22, Number 1. The Arctic Institute of North America.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Unpublished doc. 1989. Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Fisheries and Industry of the
Greenland Home Rule Government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of the Government of Canada on the Conservation of Narwhal
and Beluga.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1993. Marine Mammal Regulations. Established by Order in Council of February 4, 1993. P.C./C.P. 1993-189
(SOR/DORS/1993-56) as amended.
Doubleday, Nancy C. 1989. Co-Management Provisions of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. In, Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries. New
Directions for Improved Management and Community Development. Edited by Evelyn Pinkerton. University of British Columbia Press. 1989.
Editeur officiel du Quebec, 1976. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Quebec National Library, Legal deposit - 2nd quarter, 1976.
ISBN: 0-7754-2470-6
Freeman, Milton M. R., Eleanor E. Wein and Darren E. Keith, 1992. Recovering Rights. Bowhead Whales and Inuvialuit Subsistence in the Western
Canadian Arctic. Studies on Whaling No. 2. Canadian Circumpolar Institute and Fisheries Joint Management Committee. 1992.
International Whaling Commission, 1996a. Report of the Scientific Committee IWC/48/4. pp. 36-37. International Whaling Commission,
Cambridge, U.K.
International Whaling Commission, 1996b. Resolution on Canadian Whaling. IWC Resolution 1996-9. In, Chairman's Report of the 48th Annual
Meeting, International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, U.K.
International Wildlife Coalition 1993. Press Release August 24, 1993.
Kuptana, R. 1994. Letter from Rosemarie Kuptana, President, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, February 23, 1994.
McCartney, Allen P. Editor, Hunting the Largest Animals Native Whaling in the Western Arctic and Subarctic
Studies in Whaling No. 3, Occasional Publication No. 36, 1995. The Canadian Circumpolar Institute University of Alberta.
Mainville, R. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. In, Growing Demands on a Shrinking Heritage: Managing Resource-Use Conflicts.
Edited by Monique Ross and J. Owen Saunders. Canadian Institute of Resources Law. Calgary 1992.
Mitchell, E. 1977. Initial population size of bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) stocks; cumulative catch estimates. Int. Whal. Commn. SC/29 Doc.
33.
Mitchell, E. and Randall R. Reeves. 1982. Factors Affecting Abundance of Bowhead Whales Balaena mysticetus in the Eastern Arctic of North America,
1915-1980. Biological Conservation 22: 59-78.
Richard, P.R. and D.G. Pike, 1993. Small Whale C-Management in the Eastern Arctic: A Case History and Analysis. Arctic Vol. 46, No. 2.
Roberts, K. ed. Circumpolar Aboriginal People and Co-Management Practice. Inuvik, Northwest Territories, November 20-24, 1995 Workshop
Proceedings. Published by Arctic Institute of North America, The University of Calgary and Joint Secretariat-Inuvialuit Renewable Resource
Committees, 1996.
Robinson, M. and Lloyd Binder. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement and Resource-Use Conflicts: Co-Management in the Western Arctic and Final
Decisions in Ottawa. In, Growing Demands on a Shrinking Heritage: Managing Resource-Use Conflicts. Edited by Monique Ross and J. Owen
Saunders. Canadian Institute of Resources Law. Calgary 1992.
Sanderson, K. 1995. NAMMCO - From Rhetoric to Recommendations. ISANA No. 12. May 1995.
Stocker, S. and Igor I. Krupnik. 1993. Subsistence Whaling. In, The Bowhead Whale, edited by John J. Burns et al. Special Publication Number 2,
The Society for Marine Mammalogy 1993.
United Nations, 1993. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Index and Final Act of the Third United Nations Conference on the
Law of the Sea. United Nations, New York, USA.
United States Congress, 1978. 22 U.S.C. (Supp. V 1981).
Table 1. Land Claims Agreements - Land and Wildlife Resources
LAND WILDLIFE
- Varying degrees of ownership and - No ownership
access by non-beneficiaries - Varying degrees of access.
- Surface rights - Co-management structures
- Sub-surface rights - Funding for research for
resource use planning.
- Different boards and committees to
share land management
- Provisions dealing with future
development
- Monetary compensation
- Environmental and social impact
assessment processes.
JAMES BAY NORTHERN QUEBEC
INUVIALUIT AGREEMENT
NUNAVUT AGREEMENT
This table shows that as you go from the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement
which was signed in 1975 to the Inuvialuit Agreement signed in 1984 and the Nunavut
agreement signed in 1993, Inuit have an increasing level of access to resources.
Implementation of land claim agreements in the Canadian Arctic has significantly
affected wildlife management (Freeman et al 1992, Richard and Pike 1993, Roberts
1996 ). Inuit groups have used these agreements to further their priorities in whaling
and whale management which involves the annual take of approximately 700 beluga
and 300 narwhal as well as the take of a bowhead whale in the western Arctic in 1991
and again in July 1996 after perhaps 60 years of no hunting for this species and the
take of a bowhead whale in the eastern Arctic in August of 1996 after 20 years of no
authorized bowhead hunting.
In 1980, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans issued a statement of its policy on
whaling (Anonymous 1980). This statement was designed to explain Canada's voting
at the 1980 annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission and did not
address the issue of whaling in the Canadian Arctic. The following synthesis has been
made in the absence of a written statement of Canada's whaling policy since that time.
OVERALL FRAMEWORK:
- Aboriginal subsistence whaling only
- Sustainable utilization
- Precautionary principle
POLICY DETERMINANTS:
- Whales as food and part of Inuit culture
- Land Claims Agreements
- Sovereign rights
- Article 65 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
Canada's policy on whaling as discussed above and the constitutionally protected rights
of land claim beneficiaries in the Canadian Arctic to hunt whales has had
consequences beyond those related to the successful pursuit of Inuit aspirations related
to the management of whaling. At its 1996, Annual Meeting, the IWC adopted a
resolution on the hunting of bowhead whales in Canada (IWC 1996b). The resolution
expresses concern about all whaling not conducted in accordance with the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1946) and particular concern over possible
whaling on the eastern Arctic stock of bowhead whales. The resolution also
encourages the Government of Canada to rejoin the IWC if it continues to have a direct
interest in whaling; to reconsider any outstanding permits it has issued; and to refrain
from issuing permits unless it obtains IWC approval. In the light of Canada's policy on
whaling and given the fact that Canadian Inuit oppose Canada's rejoining the
International Whaling Commission, Canada's response to this resolution was that many
aboriginal peoples in Canada have a constitutionally protected right to harvest fish and
marine mammals, subject to conservation and that this resolution is negative,
inappropriate, and counterproductive.
This paper would not have been possible without the close collaboration of my
colleague Brian Wong of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa. I thank him
for his assistance. I thank R. Binder, S. Innes, R. Reeves and H. Welch for slides used
during presentation of this paper.