|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Download
PDF (129K) Printer
Friendly |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
MINUTES: MEETING NO. 21 23-26 MARCH 1999 IQALUIT, NT Agenda Tuesday, 23 March 1999 (Morning Session) Tuesday, 23 March 1999 (Afternoon Session) Allocation of NWRT Funding for 1999/00 Allocation of NWMB Study Funding for 1999/00
Financial and Administrative Business
Chairman, Staff, and Member Reports
Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting Environment Canada (CWS) Issues/Decisions
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) Wildlife Division
Executive Committee Report and Recommendations Meetings, Workshops and Other Pertinent Events
Tuesday, 23 March 1999 (Morning Session)
The Chairperson Ben Kovic convened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. in the meeting room of the Parnaivik Centre at Iqaluit. Joan Scottie led the opening prayer.
Ben Kovic welcomed the NWMB Members to this the 21 st regular meeting of the Board. He began by calling on the Members, staff, guests, and other participants in attendance to introduce themselves.
Ben noted that this first session of the NWMB meeting would be brief. It was to be followed immediately by a meeting of the Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust (NWRT). The purpose of this preliminary session was two-fold: to consider the meeting agenda and to swear-in David Alagalak as a new Member of the NWMB. It was necessary that Mr. Alagalak be sworn-in prior to the NWRT meeting to enable him to participate in that meeting as a bona fide Trustee.
Members reviewed the agenda for the meeting. The agenda was accepted with the addition of a provision, as already noted, to swear-in a new Board Member. (Resolution 99- 114)
Swearing-in Ceremony
At this point in the meeting Michael d’Eça, the NWMB Legal Advisor, swore-in David Alagalak as the new Nunavut Wildlife Management Board Member appointed by the Keewatin Inuit Association. All those present offered their congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Alagalak after the ceremony.
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, then temporarily suspended the NWMB meeting in order to make way for the meeting of the Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust (NWRT). The record of the NWRT meeting is archived elsewhere.
Tuesday, 23 March 1999 (Afternoon Session)
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, re-convened the NWMB meeting at 2:30 p.m., this following the morning meeting of the Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust.
5. Allocation of NWRT Funding for 1999/00
Michelle Wheatley noted that the Trustees for the Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust, in session earlier today, had approved an allotment of $752,000 plus-or-minus 5% for support of research by government agencies in 1999/00. It now remained for the Board to decide on the allocation of those funds with respect to the applications that were at hand.
Michelle referred the Members to the briefing binder that contained: Progress reports (prepared by Michelle, based on material provided by the proponents) on projects that were previously approved for NWRT funding, and that were originally scheduled for completion, in 1998/99. These projects are of two categories:
Progress reports (again, prepared by Michelle), on projects that were previously approved for a multi-year profile that included a 1999/00 funding component. Again, these projects are of two categories:
Her (Michelle’s) recommendations pertaining to 1999/00 funding for these previously-approved projects (as per the categories above). All the new applications for NWRT funding, along with her (Michelle’s) evaluations of those applications and her recommendations for any conditions that should accompany funding approval.
Michelle explained the new project numbering system that she had developed for this program. Each project has been assigned a unique number that also identifies the parent agency and the year in which the application first came forward. Michelle next directed the attention of the Board in the first instance to the previously-funded projects, and in particular to those that embody funding requests that pertain to the current year (1999/00). She identified six such projects (see above), all of which are requesting to carry forward funds from 1998/99 to 1999/00. In all except one of these cases the request to carry forward funds does not have incremental funding implications. The lone exception (DOE Project 130-97-2, on productivity of eider ducks at Karrak Lake) involves an incremental amount of $2,000.
The Board reviewed each of the progress reports in some detail, with particular attention to the six that contained proposals to carry forward funding. The Board perceived no compelling reason to continue approving funding support for DFO Project 120-95-1, the collection of charr fishery data from Baffin communities. The Board considered the two existing DFO projects pertaining to walrus (Project 120-97-1 on walrus population studies; and Project 120-98-2 on walrus satellite tagging). In respect to both of these projects, the proponent has requested to carry forward funds. Looking forward, the Board also noted a new project proposal from the same proponent (120-99-9) that purports to combine the other two studies. The Board concluded that if the proponent was aiming to simplify his overall presentation he had not been very successful. The Board decided to deal with only Project 120-97-1 in the present context, and to defer consideration of carrying forward funds for Project 120-98-2 for later treatment in conjunction with the new walrus research proposal.
Some Board Members expressed considerable dissatisfaction about some Projects tying up but not using considerable fractions of the available NWRT funding. These resources are thereby and needlessly rendered unavailable to fund other projects. Gordon Koshinsky observed that the NWRT Trustees theoretically can compensate for this somewhat in the course of deciding the annual allotment. However he agreed that the Board should be vigilant against habitual behaviour of this sort by particular agencies/researchers. Michelle pointed out what might be emerging as a systematic problem of this nature whereby proponents may budget for a traditional-ecological-knowledge (TEK) component but then fail to carry it out. Projects 110-98-2 and 110-98-3 may be examples. Meeka Mike was adamant that if a proposal contains a formal TEK component, then something more than informal community consultations would generally be expected. If it is not delivered, the funds should be returned.
The Board concluded its deliberations by deciding(Resolution 99- 115) to approve requests to carry forward Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust funds from 1998/99 to 1999/00 in respect to research projects that were previously approved for multi-year funding and that were originally characterized as ongoing through 1999/00, these approvals being as follows:
Project 110-98-1 : Traditional knowledge study of caribou on Baffin Island and Melville Peninsula, as per DSD request to carry forward $59,000 and shift the funding profile for each of the remaining years of the project back by one year. The new approved multi-year funding profile is thus: $59,000 for 1999/00; $62,000 for 2000/01; and $ 47,000 for 2001/02. Project 120-97-1 : Walrus population studies, as per DFO request to carry forward $9,100 and apply this towards the funding that was previously approved for 1999/00. Project 120-98-1 : Ringed seal study in western Hudson Bay, as per DFO request to carry forward $42,000, to be added to the funding previously approved for 1999/00. Project 130-97-2 : Productivity and survival study of king eiders at Karrak Lake, as per CWS request to carry forward $2,000, to be added to the funding previously approved for 1999/00.
The Board also decided (Resolution 99- 116) to deny the request by DFO to carry forward funding in respect to NWRT Project 120-95-1 (Collection of arctic charr fishery data from Baffin communities); thereby reaffirming the end of funding for this project in 1998/99 as previously scheduled.
Wednesday, 24 March 1999
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, re-convened the meeting at 8:05 a.m. Pauloosie Keyootak led the opening prayer.
Ben noted that in its session yesterday afternoon, the Board had not completed its treatment of Agenda item 5 , the allocation of NWRT funding for 1999/00. He accordingly addressed the meeting back to that item.
Michelle Wheatley directed the attention of the Members once again to the new applications for NWRT funding, along with her (Michelle’s) evaluations of those applications and her recommendations for any conditions that should accompany funding approval, as contained in the briefing binder. She noted that there were 13 new project proposals, with funding requests totaling $518,900 for 1999/00.
The Board reviewed the material that was provided in connection with each of the proposals. The Board’s approvals with respect to funding were amalgamated as a composite decision (Resolution 99- 117) as follows:
That the NWMB approve, with conditions as set out elsewhere in these Minutes (see below), requests by government agencies for funding from the Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust Fund in respect to new research projects in the total amount of $449,400 for use and for delivery in 1999/2000 as follows: Project 110-99-1 : Study seasonal distribution and herd delimitation of NE Mainland caribou ($35,200 to DSD for 1999/00; two-year project); Project 110-99-2 : Study survival and sustainable harvest of Dolphin-Union caribou ($64,000 to DSD for 1999/00; three-year project); Project 110-99-3 : Re-evaluate management boundaries, population status and quotas for muskox in the Keewatin and eastern Kitikmeot regions ($41,400 to DSD for 1999/00; two-year project); Project 110-99-4 : Monitor Qamanirjuaq caribou using satellite telemetry ($16,200 to DSD for 1999/00); Project 120-99-1 : Study movements and dive behaviour of Baffin Bay narwhal using satellite-linked radio tags ($25,000 to DFO for 1999/00); Project 120-99-2 : Conduct summer surveys of SE Baffin beluga in Cumberland Sound ($65,000 to DFO for 1999/00); Project 120-99-3 : Study movements and dive behaviour of beluga whales in Cumberland Sound using satellite-linked radio tags ($22,800 to DFO for 1999/00); Project 120-99-6 : Obtain samples from harvested narwhal and beluga and analyze for stock identity ($59,000 to DFO for 1999/00; three-year project); Project 120-99-7 : Study habitat selection, behaviour and size distribution of bowhead whales in northern Foxe Basin ($27,800 to DFO for 1999/00); Project 120-99-8 : Study charr populations in the Cumberland Sound area and develop a management model ($15,000 to DFO for 1999/00; two-year project); Project 120-99-9 : Study walrus population dynamics, including use of satellite tags ($53,000 to DFO for 1999/00); Project 130-99-1 : Study seasonal movements and home range of adult male polar bears in western Hudson Bay using satellite ear tags ($25,000 to CWS for 1999/00; two-year project).
As noted in the Resolution (No. 99-117, above), the Board prescribed certain funding conditions, and also made certain observations and/or expressed concerns, in respect to some (not all) of these approved projects, as follows:
Project 110-99-1, on distribution of Northeast Mainland caribou: Michelle noted that this is really a six-year project. The proposal covers just the first three years, focusing on the Repulse Bay area.
Project 110-99-2, on survival and productivity of Victoria Island caribou: Makabe Nartok expressed concern about the possibility of induced mortality from collaring. Siu-ling Han explained that other recent studies have shown little indication of collaring mortality, but acknowledged that seasonal migration of this group of animals across Dolphin and Union Strait might pose a particular hazard for any that did have collars. However the collars that will be used for the study are lighter and deemed to be generally superior to any that have been used previously. There is also provision for very rapid follow-up to determine cause of death should there be any mortality among collared animals. It was noted that the mortality/survival aspects of this project might be of interest to the WWF. Approval of funding, to a maximum of three years at this time, was made subject to the proponent: Exploring other funding sources including RWED, since some of the results of the work will be applicable outside (west of) the NSA. Confirming the support of the communities that harvest this population.
Project 110-99-3, on productivity of Keewatin/Kitikmeot muskoxen: Michelle noted that the Pelly Bay HTO has submitted a related proposal. If that project were also approved, co-ordination between the two studies should be made mandatory. Approval of funding was made subject to the proponent obtaining the written support of the RWOs.
Project 110-99-4, on distribution of Qamanirjuaq caribou: The Board will require assurance that this project will not duplicate work that has already been done or that it might be possible to synthesize by reference to the database being developed by the Beverly/Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board.
Project 120-99-1, on movements of Baffin Bay narwhal: Approval of funding was made subject to the proponent: Clarifying the time frame for the project, especially the end point. Ensuring that the attachment of short-term release instruments will not interfere with the attachment of satellite tags, the latter being integral to the central objectives of the project. Refining the budget presentation. Attributing $35,000 (nearly a quarter of the budget total) to “Miscellaneous field costs” is far too open-ended. Kevin McCormick noted that there are marked inconsistencies in the level of financial detail provided by different proponents. He urged that the most delinquent among them be encouraged to improve their presentations.
Project 120-99-2, on abundance of SE Baffin beluga: No comments or concerns were expressed, other than that the proponent should obtain written evidence of continuing support from the Pangnirtung HTO.
Project 120-99-3, on movements of SE Baffin beluga: Kevin McCormick noted that this was fundamentally a tagging project based on netting, and that it was already attempted in previous years. He asked about the earlier success rate. Michelle replied that no beluga were caught or tagged in 1997 despite considerable effort. The researchers were prepared to abandon the project, but the community partners were more optimistic. Seven beluga were captured and tagged in 1998, and the confidence of the researchers is much enhanced. However most of the details regarding how the project will be conducted in 1999 still remain to be worked out. Gordon Koshinsky questioned the validity of the assumptions being made about WWF funding participation. Michelle agreed that this could be vital, and suggested that it signaled a need to co-ordinate the funding approaches of the two agencies. Approval of funding was made subject to the proponent providing more details on the study design.
Project 120-99-6, on beluga and narwhal sampling, primarily for identification of stocks: Gordon Koshinsky noted that this is an omnibus-type of project that would underpin many other projects, not all of them mentioned here. Michelle explained that the primary focus would be to fill information gaps, since the distribution of previous sampling effort has been haphazard. She suggested that it might be the type of project that would interest the WWF. Approval of funding, for a maximum of three years, was made subject to the proponent: Clarifying the proposal to pay administration fees to the HTOs, since this is not something that the NWMB would ordinarily support. Providing evidence of community support.
Project 120-99-7, on behaviour of Foxe Basin bowheads: David Alagalak noted the lack of detail in the proposal about where the transects are to be flown, and urged that the researchers be guided by local knowledge.
Project 120-99-8, on Cumberland Sound charrr fishery modeling: Funding was approved on the basis that the proponent: Demonstrates the support of the HTO. Reports on the results of last year’s work. It was also decided that there can be no consideration of funding for this work beyond 1999/00 unless and until an extended project plan is developed.
Project 120-99-9, on walrus population studies, including satellite tagging: Michelle noted that this proposal amalgamates two previous ongoing studies. The Board has already considered some of the implications for carry-forward of funding. Funding was approved for 1999/00, subject to the proponent: Clarifying which of the budgeted items are to be addressed with NWMB funds, particularly differentiating between the tagging studies and the population work. Identifying how the difficulties encountered with the tagging component of the project last year will be addressed. Confirming the support of the Grise Fiord HTO for the tagging studies. It will be necessary for the proponent to demonstrate that the tagging problems have been resolved before funding beyond 1999/00 will be considered.
Project 130-99-1, on movements of male polar bears in Hudson Bay: Kevin McCormick pointed out that the project aims to deploy a new innovation that will permit, for the first time, the collaring of male polar bears. Michelle noted that the project did not rate particularly high on the scoring system, but that it was intuitively attractive. Gordon Koshinsky observed that the proponent demonstrated a type of enthusiasm that was not evident in most of the proposals. Approval of funding was made subject to the proponent confirming the support of the Keewatin communities that harvest the Western Hudson Bay polar bear population.
Consideration of Project proposal 120-99-5 (to develop a charrr fishery model for Nunavut, based on Keewatin data) yielded the observations that the estimated costs were not adequately justified, nor was the need to retain the services of a consultant adequately demonstrated. The Board concluded that the proponent should be encouraged to develop this model, but should not approach the Board for funding until the work could be outlined in clearer terms. The project therefore was excluded from the list of project approvals as per Resolution 99-117, above.
6. Allocation of NWMB Study Funding for 1999/00
Michelle Wheatley reminded the Members that the Board annually establishes a budget out of its internal operating funds that is then made available to support research by other-than-government agencies, such as HTOs. Michelle referred the Members to the binder of briefing materials pertaining to research projects, as per this NWMB program, grouped in three categories: Projects that were approved for 1998/99, and were either completed or were (apparently) never initiated; Projects that were approved for 1998/99, and are requesting continuing support through carry-forward of funds to 1999/00; and Projects that are requesting support in 1999/00 and that are being classified as new projects for this exercise on the basis of having submitted new project proposals, often but not always reflecting a start-up mode.
Michelle identified three projects that were approved for 1998/99 and are requesting authorization to carry forward funds to 1999/00. They are: Benthic survey, by Nattivak HTO: $10,000 South Baffin caribou workshop, organized by DSD: $8,500 Publication on narwhal and beluga behaviour, by DFO: $4,000
The Nattivak project, to identify shellfish resources for possible exploitation around Broughton Island, produced encouraging early results but was temporarily stalled by equipment problems. These problems have now been resolved and the HTO plans to continue this survey if the funding remains available. The carry-forward requests in respect to the other two projects have been rolled into new project proposals by these same proponents. The Board noted that all of these requests are within the spending authority of the Director of Wildlife Management, and that it was appropriate for her to act on them or administer them according to her own best judgement.
Turning to the new project proposals, Michelle pointed out that this marked the first time that the Board’s new one-annual-window policy for considering new proposals has been in effect. In total, 15 proposals have been received from agencies outside of government, for NWMB support of studies to be done in 1999/00. The applications, along with various supporting materials including her (Michelle’s) analyses and recommendations, are contained in the briefing binders. The proposals were evaluated against the same criteria and with reference to the same research priorities as were used to evaluate the NWRT proposals. The 15 new proposals total $369,520 for 1999/00.
The Board reviewed the materials that were provided in connection with each of the new proposals. The Board’s discussions, concerns and decisions were as follows:
1. Provide vessel support for Greenland halibut surveys in NAFO Sub-Area 0: This is a three-year project, being organized by DFO with the encouragement of the NWMB, among others. The Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board (QWB) has applied for NWMB funding ($120,000 in the first year) to lease a vessel to support the field work. The Board has devoted considerable attention to the design of this survey in the process of negotiating with DFO for its inclusion in the Department’s 1999/00 workplan. The Department and the Minister have been positive about the prospects for this project, but have not absolutely confirmed their financial and technical participation.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 118) to give its approval-in-principle to the provision of NWMB study funding to the Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board in the amount of $120,000 for 1999/00 to support a scientific survey of Greenland halibut in NAFO Divisions 0A and 0B, with final approval contingent upon: The confirmation of complementary funding (as budgeted) by DFO; Confirmation by DFO of financial and technical participation for the full three-year time horizon of the survey as planned; and Preparation by DFO of a plan to report the survey results and interpretations to the adjacent communities.
2. Study winter ecology of common eiders in the Belcher Islands: This project aims to determine the distribution and movements of eiders in relation to changing ice conditions to help explain the population declines that have been observed, and also to document other ecological and human interactions. This would in fact be the second year of studies devoted to the present objectives, these following upon a survey of the eider population in 1997. The 1997 survey was supported by NWRT funds and the subsequent work has been classified as new NWMB funding initiatives. The proponent is the Sanikiluaq HTO, and the CWS is affiliated. The HTO has applied for NWMB funding of $27,000 for 1999/00.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 119) to approve $27,000 of NWMB study funding to the Sanikiluaq HTO in 1999/00 for continuing study of the winter ecology of common eiders in the Belcher Islands, this subject to provision by the proponent of satisfactory reports on the 1998/99 program.
3. Document traditional knowledge of Bathurst caribou: This project aims to help ensure the continuity of Inuit ecological knowledge and to promote the transmittal of this information from elders to youths. The project is well developed and is embarking on its third year, although not previously funded by the NWMB. The proponent is the Tuktu and Nogak Advisory Board at Iqaluktutiaq, which has applied for NWMB funding of $30,000 for 1999/00.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 120) to approve $30,000 of NWMB study funds to the Tuktu and Nogak Advisory Board in 1999/00 for a one-year compilation of elders’ knowledge about the Bathurst caribou herd and its calving grounds, this subject to the confirmation of other funding required to complete the budget. 4. Continue development of a management plan for South Baffin caribou: This project is contributory to a larger initiative that the territorial government has had underway for some time. That larger initiative is to develop a comprehensive management plan for the South Baffin caribou population, with a major grounding in traditional historical knowledge. The project that is here under consideration supports those elements of that initiative that pertain to consultations with Inuit elders and with communities. The NWMB provided some funding for the project last year, but the results have not yet been well documented. The proponent, operating through the Qikiktaaluk Wildlife Board (QWB), is requesting $14,000 from the NWMB to continue this work in 1999/00. Of this amount, $8,500 would be carried forward from last year.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 121) to approve $14,000 of NWMB study funding to the QWB in 1999/00 for completion (second year) of community consultations and related work pertinent to developing a management plan for the South Baffin caribou population, with this approval contingent upon: The proponent providing clarification about work completed in 1998/99, and possible resultant cost savings that are available for 1999/00. Confirmation by DSD of complementary funding and staff resources (as budgeted).
5. Mark/recapture Arctic charr and document domestic fishery at Chantrey Inlet This project aims to document the domestic utilization of Arctic charr in the Chantrey Inlet area and to elucidate the seasonal movements and distribution of these fish. There is a substantial commercial fishery for Arctic charr in the area and the Gjoa Haven HTO is concerned about the possibility of over-fishing. As project proponent, the HTO is requesting a $11,000 contribution from the NWMB for 1999/00. The project, as planned, has a major tagging and tag-recovery component. DFO did a tagging project in this area in 1997.
Gordon Koshinsky considered that the proposal had technical aspects that would be difficult or impossible to execute without dedicated technical assistance or a great deal of appropriate training. He also suggested that the Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study, especially in conjunction with returns from DFO’s earlier tagging program, should provide most of the information being sought. Johnny McPherson stated that there had been some tag returns from the Back River, but apparently none from any of the other key locations. Johnny was concerned that domestic fishers would be reluctant to provide harvest data to two different programs simultaneously.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 122) to approve $11,000 of NWMB study funding to the Gjoa Haven HTO in 1999/00 for a one-year tagging and domestic utilization study on Arctic charr in the Chantry Inlet area. This approval is contingent upon: Provision of assurance that the harvest-monitoring aspects will do more than duplicate the Harvest Study; Clarification of the objectives for the proposed tagging aspect; Provision of a research permit by DFO for any tagging activity; Clarification by DFO of the status of the previous tagging studies; and Participation of a qualified technician or trained personnel in all fish tagging activities.
6. Document traditional knowledge of Nunavut polar bears: The three RWOs are proposing to mount a two-year project to document and analyze Inuit traditional knowledge and socio-economic factors pertinent to the management of polar bears. The project as envisaged would culminate in recommendations for management policy, practice and planning. The RWOs are requesting $20,000 each year for two years from the NWMB, or about one-sixth of the total estimated study cost.
Gordon Koshinsky observed that the proposal was elegantly constructed, and he interpreted it to be the work of a prospective consultant. Gordon took exception to a fundamental proposition upon which the proposal is built, that “Inuit forms of management differ fundamentally from those of wildlife managers by managing not individual species per se, but by managing human activities in relation to animals”. The NWMB is the paramount wildlife management agency in the NSA, and it would be difficult to find an example of a “wildlife management” decision by the NWMB that did not in fact hinge on managing human activities.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 123) to approve $20,000 of NWMB study funding to the three RWOs in concert in 1999/00, this for the first year of a planned two-year Inuit knowledge study of polar bears in the NSA, with this approval subject to the following conditions: That the DSD contribution as identified be confirmed; That NWMB funding would be one-year-at-a-time; That the NWMB contribution would flow through the QWB; and That the proponents of all NWMB- and NWRT-funded projects having traditional-knowledge components in respect to polar bears provide joint assurance that there is no overlap among their activities.
7. Document the cultural and traditional importance and use of ringed seals: The proponent, Mr. Sam Emiktowt of Coral Harbour, is requesting NWMB funding support in the amount of $30,000 to assist him to interpret and document historical practices of harvesting and utilizing ringed seals as well as traditional knowledge of their ecological and cultural importance.
Gordon stated his interpretation that the first test of eligibility of a research proposal for NWMB support should be that it had the potential to assist the NWMB in executing its mandate. He was not convinced that this proposal, nor possibly some others in this group, had that potential. Kevin McCormick suggested that there must be more appropriate funding sources for such a study than the NWMB.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 124) not to approve NWMB study funding to Mr. Sam Emiktowt to examine the traditional importance of ringed seals in Inuit culture and survival, and instead to direct the proponent to approach other funding sources having a stronger cultural orientation.
8. Monitor Snow and Ross’ geese and their habitat near Arviat: This would be the third and final year of a project to follow the population abundance of these geese in this breeding area, and to assess their effects on the vegetation. The NWMB has supported the project in each of the previous years, and the proponent is requesting $10,240 for 1999/00. The work is done in affiliation with the CWS, and contributes to that agency’s research and management planning mandate.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 125) to approve NWMB study funding to the Arviat HTO in the amount of $10,240 for 1999/00 to complete (third year) a project to monitor the abundance and impacts on habitat of snow and Ross’ geese in the Arviat area. The Board noted that the proponent(s) needs to: Reconcile the 1999/00 budget with the budgets of previous years; and Develop a plan for reporting the study results to the community.
9. Document traditional knowledge of wildlife in the Baffin Region: The Niutaq Cultural Institute, headquartered in Igloolik, proposes to document traditional knowledge of elders pertaining to wildlife in 12 Baffin communities. The Institute is seeking NWMB funding in the amount of $30,000 to assist with this work.
Meeka Mike and Pauloosie Keyootak spoke in favour of the project. However most of the Board Members considered that the workplan was too ambitious for the schedule and the budget that were set out for the project.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 126) not to approve NWMB study funding to the Niutaq Cultural Institute to gather traditional knowledge pertaining to Baffin mammals and birds, and instead to direct the proponent to approach other funding sources having a stronger cultural orientation.
10. Publish satellite-telemetry studies of beluga and narwhal behaviour: Funding for this project was approved last year but the final stages of collecting and preparing the materials for publication were not completed and the NWMB funding was not used. The proponent, a DFO researcher, proposes to carry this funding forward in order to complete the project in the form of a special issue of the journal Arctic . The item has been included for the Board’s consideration because it was submitted as a new project proposal under this program.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 127) to approve the request from DFO to carry forward into 1999/00 NWMB funding in the amount of $4,000 in order to complete a publication pertaining to beluga and narwhal behaviour determined by satellite telemetry. The Board did suggest that this project would more appropriately be coded to the Board’s budget for Conservation Education.
11. Conduct ground-based survey of muskox and caribou near Pelly Bay: Gordon Koshinsky noted that the proposal is predicated on the expectation by the Pelly Bay HTO of being able to document a population increase (of muskox) in order to justify a request for increased quota. However no previous population estimates have been made using the proposed (ground-based) survey methodology, so there will be no theoretical possibility of demonstrating a population change on this basis alone. It is very unlikely that it will be possible to correlate the ground-based results with previous aerial surveys to the extent necessary to achieve this aim. However ground-based surveys can be very useful tools for helping to plan aerial surveys and, if repeated over time, can provide relatively economical and very useful indices of abundance. Michelle Wheatley pointed out that DSD has been involved in the preparation of the HTO proposal. The department is also moving towards conducting an aerial survey, probably in 2000. Michelle referred the Board to DSD Project 110-99-3, which the Board had already approved for NWRT funding.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 128) to approve NWMB study funding to the Pelly Bay HTO in the amount of $15,000 for 1999/00 for a one-year ground-based survey of muskox and caribou in Muskox Management Area MX17, with this funding conditional upon the proponent: Ensuring that the project is planned and executed in a manner to maximize its value as input to the forthcoming DSD aerial survey; Committing to make the results available to DSD; and Clarifying the reference to caribou in the project title; Confirming that complementary RWED and DSD funding is available; Agreeing to a payment schedule as prescribed by the NWMB.
12. Study seasonal movements of Beverly caribou: The Beverly/Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board proposes to collar, and then to track by means of satellite technology, ten female Beverly caribou over a two-year period, to obtain information for managing the increasing land-use activities on the seasonal ranges of the herd. The BQCMB is seeking $28,000 from the NWMB in the first year of a three-year commitment to this project.
Kevin McCormick noted that this project seems to parallel a DSD project being funded under the NWRT program in respect to the Qamanirjuaq herd. Kevin also questioned how this project would relate to the work that Leslie Wakelyn is doing for the BQCMB pertaining to caribou habitat utilization.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 129) to approve NWMB study funding to the B/Q Board in the amount of $28,000 for 1999/00, this being the first year of a planned three-year study of the seasonal movements of Beverly caribou. Approval is contingent upon the proponent: Clarifying the relationships between this project and:
Confirming funding from the West Kitikmeot / Slave Study as indicated in the proposal. Obtaining the written support of the communities that utilize the Beverly herd, including addressing the concerns of the elders in northern Saskatchewan communities. Refining the various aggregated budget estimates.
13. Develop a plan for monitoring bowhead whales at Igalirtuuq: The Clyde River HTO is requesting $5,000 from the NWMB to hire a local Inuk consultant to develop a plan for a community-based monitoring program for bowhead whales in Isabella Bay. It is envisaged that this plan would serve as the basis for developing a funding proposal to conduct the actual monitoring.
Michelle Wheatley advised that a subsequent proposal from the HTO, which may represent a next stage in the development of this overall concept, arrived too late for consideration in the present round. Michelle noted that the Board has not previously provided funding to retain consultants to develop proposals, and that the Board might want to consider the precedent that would be set.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 130) not to approve NWMB study funding to the Clyde River HTO to conduct planning activities for studies of bowhead whales in Isabella Bay, and instead to offer to assist the HTO to prepare an actual proposal and also to encourage them to seek other funding sources.
14. Trench rivers to aid fish migration in Belcher Islands: The Sanikiluaq HTO perceives that trenching the mouths of certain rivers in their region would benefit the passage of fish in these rivers, in both directions. The HTO is requesting $23,675 from the NWMB to support this work.
Michelle Wheatley noted that the Board has provided funding of up to about $10,000 for similar projects at other locations in the past. The results of those projects have apparently not been evaluated to date. The project might obtain favourable consideration from the habitat-improvement program of the WWF, but that could only be on a cost-shared basis. David Alagalak stated that trenching steams to improve charr access has the potential to reduce over-wintering capacity and thus can sometimes have a negative net impact.
The Board decided (Resolution 99- 131) to approve NWMB study funding to the Sanikiluaq HTO in the amount of $10,000 for 1999/00 to help address the costs of trenching the mouths of certain streams on the Belcher Islands as an aid to arctic charr migrations; and to advise the HTO that the NWMB is prepared to assist them in efforts to attract additional funding from other sources for this project. Approval is contingent upon the HTO: Incorporating a before-and-after monitoring element in the project design to enable evaluation; Clarifying the items in the budget pertaining to personnel costs; and Declaring plans for reporting progress and results to the NWMB and to the community.
15. Evaluate electric fencing as a polar bear deterrent: The Clyde River HTO proposes to conduct an experiment to evaluate electric fencing as an alternative to killing problem polar bears. They consider that, if successful, such a passive deterrent would be especially useful around outpost camps. New electrical-fencing technology now available has proven successful in deterring black bears and grizzly bears, but has not been tested with polar bears. The HTO is requesting $6,100 from the NWMB to fund a test.
David Alagalak confirmed that he had seen electrical fencing used successfully to control the movements of black and grizzly bears, and agreed that the technology should be evaluated with polar bears. However, a number of concerns were identified with the design of the experiment as proposed. Pauloosie Keyootak wondered about the dangers of the equipment to children and dogs. Pauloosie also noted the planned use of bait, and was concerned about inadvertently attracting other animals. Kevin McCormick noted the plan to record the results with a hand-held video camera, and wondered if that sort of human activity might not affect the behaviour of the bears. Kevin also was not certain that the use of solar-powered chargers as planned would be practical in the Arctic.
In view of perceived shortcomings in the project design, the Board decided (Resolution 99- 132) not to approve NWMB study funding to the Clyde River HTO for an assessment of electric fencing as a deterrent to polar bears. The Board did want to indicate, however, that it considered the idea to merit further development.
7.A Regular Meeting No. 20, Yellowknife
The Minutes for Regular Meeting No. 20, held on 5-6 December 1998, were adopted with minor adjustments. (Resolution 99- 133)
7.B Special Meeting No. 08, Yellowknife
The Minutes for Special Meeting No.08, held on 04 December 1998, were adopted with minor adjustments. (Resolution 99- 134)
The Minutes for Conference Call No. 42, conducted on 08 February 1999, were adopted with minor adjustments. (Resolution 99- 135)
8. Financial and Administrative Business
8.A Financial/Variance Report as at 28 February 1999
Gordon Tomlinson provided an overview of the NWMB financial situation to 28 February, including a detailed variance report. A negative variance of $51,590 is currently indicated. The Board accepted the financial report as presented. (Resolution 99- 136)
8.B Funding Arrangement with DIAND for 1999/00: Update
Jim Noble advised that DIAND’s proposal for a Contribution Agreement for the coming year had just been received. Jim indicated that the Agreement as proposed contained a number of problems. The Board asked its Legal Advisor, Michael d’Eça, to develop an overview of the situation and to draft a possible response.
8.C Funding Re-Allocations by the Nunavut Implementation Panel (NIP)
Jim Noble tabled a recent letter from Bruce Gillies stating that the Panel recognized that the RWOs and HTOs required more funds to fulfil their responsibilities under the NLCA, and giving notice that the Panel considered funding that had already been allotted to the NWMB to be one potential source for addressing this shortfall. The Panel is requesting the NWMB to provide certain information to assist the Panel in deciding how to deal with this problem. All this follows on the heels of the recent Panel decision to unilaterally re-allocate IPG funding (including some from the NWMB) to the NIRB for the current fiscal year.
Michael d’Eça suggested that there were two issues of concern: The relationship of the Panel to the NWMB (and to all the IPGs). The Panel has the authority to take these kinds of actions. However the Panel is not immune from the rules of procedural fairness. These rules require the giving of notice, providing reasons, engaging in consultation, providing opportunity for response, etc. The need for the Panel to engage in these kinds of actions. The Panel is not authorized to act capriciously. This means that in these particular situations, as examples, the recipients of re-profiled funding should have demonstrable need linked to responsible actions of their own.
Kevin McCormick asked about the projected financial position of the NWMB to the end of the ten-year contract period assuming that there is no further re-profiling of NWMB funds by the NIP. Gordon Tomlinson stated that a shortfall of about one million dollars was currently projected for the final fiscal year, but that this was rather an artificial problem that derived from the lack of convergence between fiscal years of the NWMB and funding years as per the Implementation Contract. Gordon Koshinsky counseled that if a certain amount of the NWMB’s “carryover funding” is proposed for re-profiling to another agency, the NWMB should be in a position to identify specifically what the impact would be on NWMB programs.
9. Chairman, Staff, and Member Reports
Ben Kovic reported attending three national and/or international meetings on behalf of the Board since the last meeting. He referred the Members to the briefing binders for details.
9.B Executive Director's Report
Jim Noble noted that his recent illness kept him away from work for about a month in the preceding quarter. He referred to his report in the briefing binder.
9.C Director of Wildlife Management Report
Michelle Wheatley noted that a large part of her time over the past two months was devoted to receiving and evaluating proposals to obtain funding from the Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust Fund and from the NWMB Studies Fund.
9.D Director of Finance and Administration Report
Gordon Tomlinson noted that in addition to his ordinary duties, he had devoted considerable attention to the design and implementation of upgrades to the NWMB computer network.
Michael d’Eça referred to his briefing note. Work items completed since mid November include final drafting of the NWMB submission concerning Bill C-48, extensive input on preparations for the new narwhal management system, and various interactions pertaining to the NWMB’s funding arrangement with DIAND, the NWT’s initiative to draft new wildlife legislation, the ongoing disputes with DFO concerning resource allocations in Davis Strait, and other matters.
9.F Fisheries Advisor's Report
Michelle Wheatley referred to the progress from Ray Andrews in the briefing binder. In one important development, the Fisheries Advisor succeeded in obtaining specific inclusion of the Arctic in DFO’s forthcoming Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review. Considerable recent attention was focussed on addressing matters of common concern with Greenland.
9.G Members’ Reports and Concerns
There was no focused treatment of this agenda item at this Meeting. Members expressed their concerns in conjunction with the treatment of other topics.
10. Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting
Jim Noble referred Members to the list of assignments stemming from the last meeting, along with the notations pertaining to the status of each item listed therein. Kevin McCormick once again expressed general satisfaction with the format of this presentation and more importantly with the progress that it revealed.
Thursday, 25 March 1999
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, re-convened the meeting at 8:40 a.m. David Alagalak led the opening prayer.
11. Environment Canada (CWS) Issues/Decisions
11.A Proposed Spring Hunt for Snow Geese: Update
Kevin McCormick reported that Environment Canada has received notice that a consortium of animal welfare interests is mounting a court challenge to block the regulatory revision that would permit the spring snow goose hunt. The Dene Nation has joined the consortium in this action, on the grounds (their claim) that consultations were inadequate. If it survives the challenge, the expanded hunting season will be in Quebec and around Churchill, Manitoba. It is probable that the NWMB will be asked for an opinion, and might do well to prepare accordingly.
The Board decided to develop a short position statement in support of the regulatory change. This matter was subsequently revisited and a position paper was adopted. (Resolution 99- 137)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
