Tuesday, 20 March 2001

1. Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries

Ben Kovic called the 28 th meeting of the NWMB to order at 9:20 am . He welcomed all the participants.

2. Agenda for the Meeting

Ben noted that the Board once again faced a heavy agenda. The Members recognized the particular need to ensure adequate treatment of the research and study proposal.

The Board decided (Resolution 2001- 011) to accept the agenda for Meeting No. 28 as presented, but to change the sequence of the items in order to address at the outset the proposals for funding in support of research and study projects.

12..Funding of Research and Study Projects

12A. Allocation of Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust Funding for 2001/02

Ben Kovic reminded the Members that the Nunavut Wildlife Research Trustees, in session yesterday evening, had allocated $840,000 ± 5% of NWRT funds for research by government agencies in the forthcoming fiscal year.

Before commencing the detailed consideration of the research proposals, Ben reminded the Board that he, along with Moses Koonoo and Michael d'Eça on behalf of the NWMB, recently led and participated in a round of community consultations pertaining to the new community-based management system for narwhal and beluga. Ben suggested that in order to properly underpin community-based management, it will be necessary to have much better estimates of the standing stocks of the animals as well as a more complete tabulation and assessment of traditional insights regarding them. Ben urged that the Board give high priority to these matters when considering the proposals for research and study funding.

Michelle Wheatley noted that last year (at the March 2000 Board meeting and subsequently) the Board approved new and continuing NWRT funding in the total amount of $770,700 (including carry-overs) for 18 projects. Not all of this approved funding was actually used. The total of the estimated expenditures for 2000/01, based on interim financial reports provided by proponents to date, is $523,900.

Michelle explained the filing system that she has in place for NWRT research proposals and research projects in order to facilitate tracking. She also reviewed the NWMB process for identifying research priorities to guide agencies in their development of research proposals, as well as the revised (1999) NWMB policy that she followed in evaluating the proposals that were received. Michelle reminded the Board about the scoring system that is in place for evaluating proposals.

Michelle drew attention to a number of issues that she encountered in reviewing the materials that were submitted by government agencies for this exercise. Not all of these issues are new or unique to the current year, but they do seem to be increasing or to have become more problematic than in the past. Michelle suggested that the Board Members might wish to take account of these issues in conducting their own reviews of these materials, and also perhaps take specific steps to address some or all of them for future years. These issues include:

• Generally poor performance by hunters in submitting sample materials for use by researchers, this despite hunters being reimbursed for samples and substantial numbers of animals being harvested in most instances.
  
• A number of requests to carry-forward funds for projects into a year or years for which the work was not previously approved.
  
• Increasing evidence of intent by proponents to use project funds to pay graduate students and casual employees.
  
• References to funding from other sources not always being confirmed.

• A large reduction in funding by the Polar Continental Shelf Project announced in January, and partially reinstated subsequently.
  
• Anticipated proposals not materialising, for example to conduct population studies of narwhals in Davis Strait .

Kevin McCormick urged, and the Board agreed, that the NWMB complain to the responsible Minister about the serious impact of funding reductions to the PCSP, and the disruptive effect of funding uncertainties on program planning and delivery. Michelle reported that Pierre Richard of DFO indicated that the Department decided against submitting a narwhal research proposal for Davis Strait prior to the forthcoming meeting of the Scientific Working Group of the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission in May. The Board gave consideration to setting aside NWRT funds for such research, but decided against it in view of Mr. Richard’s declaration that it was highly unlikely that the work could proceed prior to next March or April.

Michelle referred the Members to the extensive briefing material that she had prepared in respect to this agenda item. She explained that this material included:

• Interim status reports (prepared by the proponents), along with her (Michelle’s) evaluations, with respect to the 18 projects that were approved by the NWMB for NWRT funding for 2000/01. These 18 projects are of two basic categories:
  
• Fifteen projects that were completed as scheduled or to the extent practicable in 2000/01. Proponents for three of these projects are requesting some carry-forward of funds from 2000/01 to 2000/02.

Three projects that were undertaken in 2000/01 but were not scheduled for completion until 20001/02, this in the context of previously authorized multi-year profiles. The proponents have different funding and program delivery intentions for these projects, characterised as follows:

• One project which the proponent is aiming to continue in 2001/02 as originally planned;
  
• One project which the proponent is aiming to continue in 2001/02 as planned, but for which the proponent is also requesting some carry-forward of funds from 2000/01;
  
• One project which the proponent is proposing to re-structure as a new project for 2001/02.

• Proposals (prepared by the proponents), along with her (Michelle’s) evaluations, with respect to sixteen new projects which proponents seek to begin in 2001/02. These proposals are arranged by rank (from highest to lowest) according to the scores derived by Michelle in her evaluations.

Michelle advised the Board that the total NWRT funding implications for all the proposals at hand, including those that were previously authorized in a multi-year funding context, is $887,700. This figure incorporates a number of recent revisions to material contained in the briefing binder. Michelle distributed an information note summarising these revisions. She pointed out that the total amount marginally exceeded the funds that the NWR Trustees had allotted.

Michelle suggested that it would be logical and prudent to consider the various proposals for NWRT funding for 2001/02 in three stages:

• Ongoing projects earlier authorized for multi-year funding.
• Projects requesting carry-forward of funds from 2000/01.
• New proposals, in order of rank.

Turning first to the two ongoing projects previously authorized for multi-year funding, the Board decided (Resolution 2001- 012) to approve, subject to receipt of appropriate financial documentation for 2000/01 from the contracting agencies by June 15, new NWRT funding support in the total amount of $56,800 for 2001/02, for continuing research projects previously authorized for multi-year funding as follows:

• Project 5110-99-2 (Survival and sustainable harvest of the Dolphin-Union caribou herd): Provision of $21,500 to DSD; final year of funding.

• Project 5120-99-6 (Whale sampling and stock identification): Provision of $35,300 to DFO; final year of funding.

Turning next to the four proposals to carry forward approved funding from 2000/01 to 2001/02, the Board Members decided and were advised or observed as follows:

• For DFO Project 5120-99-6 (Whale sampling and stock identification), the Board decided (Resolution 2001- 013) to approve a carry-forward of $17,900 mainly to pay hunters for samples not yet submitted. It was noted that this is an ongoing (multi-year) project, with funding implications for next year in addition to this carry-forward.

• For DFO Project 5120-98-1 (Ringed seal status in western Hudson Bay ), the Board decided (Resolution 2001- 014)to approve a carry-forward of $2,000. In reviewing this proposal to carry forward funds, it was noted that:

• The project has under-spent its funding allotment every year, due primarily to hunters not submitting projected numbers of samples.

• The project was especially handicapped in its final year by the loss of the principal investigator.

• For DFO Project 5120-00-8 (Narwhal population survey in northern Hudson Bay), the Board decided (Resolution 2001- 015)to approve a carry-forward of $2,000, primarily to conduct a community workshop in April rather than in March as was originally planned.

• For DFO Project 5120-00-12 (Walrus stock identification and harvest composition), the Board decided (Resolution 2001- 016)to approve a carry-forward of $4,700, for the completion of certain analyses including with respect to sample materials from Cape Dorset that have not yet been delivered to the proponent.
  In reviewing this project and the associated proposal to carry forward funds from the previous year, a number of matters were noted and a number of questions were raised:
  

• Only a few of the samples that were projected have been obtained. The project is turning back $42,500 of NWRT funds from last year.
  
• The question was asked whether enough samples are being obtained to render a set of analyses that will be viable and meaningful.
  
• Hunters were requested to submit walrus tongues along with the other sample materials, to be analysed for Trichinella . Even the promise of those analyses did not generate the necessary interest and commitment.
  
• The question was asked whether hunters may have cultural of other reasons for not submitting the tongues of walrus that they harvest.

Turning finally to the 16 new proposals for NWRT funding for 2001/02, the Members reviewed Michelle’s evaluations of the applications and her recommendations for any conditions that should accompany funding approval. Following this review, the Board approved funding with respect to 13 of these new proposals by way of an aggregate decision (Resolution 2001- 017) as follows:

That the NWMB approve NWRT funding support in the total amount of $633,700 for 2001/02, subject to routine administrative and other arrangements including confirmation that all funding identified in the proposals is in place, for the following new research projects deemed in general to adequately satisfy NWRT criteria:

Project 5110-01-1 (Influence of food availability and quality on the movements and population dynamics of the Dolphin-Union caribou herd): Provision of $24,200 to DSD for 2001/02, conditional on confirmation of support from the communities where the research will be conducted; approved as a three-year project with $25,500 indicated for 2002/03 and $26,700 for 2003/04.

Project 5110-01-3 (Caribou population delineation in the Queen Maud Gulf region): Provision of $32,000 to DSD for 2001/02, conditional on confirmation of support from the communities where the research will be conducted; approved as a three-year project with $25,500 indicated for 2002/03 and $26,700 for 2003/04.

Project 5120-01-1 (Bowhead satellite tagging and habitat evaluation): Provision of $54,100 to DFO, conditional on confirmation of support from the communities where the research will be conducted; approved as a two-year project with $25,300 indicated for 2002/03 pending confirmation that the participation of the Danish expert is needed in the second year.

Project 5120-01-2 (Cumberland Sound beluga and narwhal movements and dive behaviour study by satellite telemetry): Provision of $56,000 to DFO for 2001/02; approved as a one-year project.

Project 5120-01-3 (Walrus capture/recapture methods): Provision of $25,000 to DFO for 2001/02, conditional on confirmation of support from the communities where the research will be conducted; approved as a one-year project.

Project 5120-01-4 (Walrus tagging): Provision of $38,000 to DFO for 2001/02, conditional on confirmation of support from the Resolute Bay HTO or wherever else the research takes place; approved as a one-year project.

Project 5120-01-5 (Stock and life history differences in Cumberland Sound Arctic charr): Provision of $31,500 to FDO for 2001/02, conditional on the field co-ordinator being staffed locally; approved as a one-year project.

Project 5120-01-6 (Survey of Greenland halibut resource in NAFO Sub-Area 0): Provision of $145,000 to DFO for 2001/02, conditional on receipt of a complete report on the 2000 survey; approved as a one-year project.

Project 5120-01-7 (North Baffin narwhal movements and dive behaviour study by satellite telemetry): Provision of $30,000 to DFO for 2001/02; approved as a one-year project.

Project 5130-01-1 (Duckling survival and population biology of King Eiders): Provision of $39,900 to DOE for 2001/02, conditional on confirmation of support from the community where the research will be conducted; one (first) year of funding approved for this multi-year project.

Project 5130-01-4 (Use of satellite telemetry to locate migration routes and wintering areas of Common Eiders breeding in Nunavut): Provision of $65,000 to DOE for 2001/02, conditional on confirmation of support from the communities where the research will be conducted; one (first) year of funding approved for this multi-year project.

Project 5130-01-5 (Ecology of Hudson Bay Eiders wintering at polynyas in the Belcher Islands): Provision of $34,000 to DOE for 2001/02, conditional on confirmation of support from the community where the research will be conducted; approved as a two-year project with $34,000 indicated for 2002/03.

Project 5130-01-6 (Reproductive ecology and survival of the Pacific Common Eider in central Arctic Canada): Provision of $59,000 to DOE for 2001/02; approved as a three-year project with $51,000 indicated for 2002/03 and $53,000 for 2003/04.

The Board, (individual Member and/or in aggregate), and/or Michelle made observations or expressed concerns in connection with ten of these approved new projects as follows:

For Project 5110-01-2 (Influence of food availability and quality on the movements and population dynamics of the Dolphin-Union caribou herd), the Board agreed with Michelle that the proponent should be encouraged to:

• Work with the local HTO to ensure that useable animal products from caribou harvested for necropsies are utilized; and

• Explore the possibility of providing concurrent local training on necropsy techniques, perhaps via a local school.
  
• For Project 5120-01-1 (Bowhead satellite tagging and habitat evaluation), the Board agreed that the proponent should take concrete steps to:

• Demonstrate to the Board the actual tagging procedures; and

• Provide assurance to the Board that the procedure is not detrimental to the animals.
  
• For Project 5120-01-2 (Cumberland Sound beluga and narwhal movements and dive behaviour study by satellite telemetry), the Board agreed that the proponent should be encouraged to take samples for DNA analyses concurrent with applying satellite tags.
  
• For Project 5120-01-3 (Walrus capture/recapture methods), Michelle noted:
  
• That the object of the work is to develop a library of genetic material that uniquely identifies individual walrus, to be followed by repeat sampling (a form of mark-and-recapture) to estimate population size;
  

• That the technique, if and when developed, might also be applicable to other wildlife species.
  
• For Project 5120-01-4 (Walrus tagging), the Board agreed with Michelle that the proponent should be encouraged to consider:
• Moving the project to a more accessible location until the technique is better developed (assuming that PCSP support is not a factor); and/or
  
• Combining the project with one of the other walrus research projects in an effort to reduce logistic costs.

• For Project 5120-01-5 (Stock and life history differences in Cumberland Sound Arctic charr), the Board agreed that the proponent should be asked to demonstrate to the Board how specifically the products of this research will be applicable to the management of wild charr stocks.
  
• For Project 5120-01-7 ( North Baffin narwhal movements and dive behaviour study by satellite telemetry), Michelle noted that
  :
• This project was approved for multi-year funding last year, but the proponent chose to bring it as a new proposal for greater funding;
  
• The project is not currently expected to extend beyond 2001/02, but that could change;
  
• Preliminary indications from the work last year are that narwhal departing the Creswell Bay area ( Somerset Island ) move to Baffin Bay and on to Greenland without passing near Pond Inlet.
  

• For Project 5130-01-4 (Use of satellite telemetry to locate migration routes and wintering areas of Common Eiders breeding in Nunavut ), the Board was encouraged by the significant funding contribution from DOE’s Northern Ecosystems Initiative. Kevin McCormick explained that the NEI is a new DOE-sponsored program intended to address over-arching environmental concerns in partnership with other organizations. The program focuses on four themes: climate change, contaminants, cumulative impacts, and environmental monitoring.
  
• For Project 5130-01-5 (Ecology of Hudson Bay Eiders wintering at polynyas in the Belcher Islands ), David Alagalak suggested that the proponent be encouraged to take every advantage of the extensive and well documented traditional knowledge that is available at Sanikiluaq.
  
• For Project 5130-01-6 ( Reproductive ecology and survival of the Pacific Common Eider in central Arctic Canada), Michelle stressed that this proposal was very well done, and could serve as a model for other proponents.

Three of the new proposals for NWRT funding had been set aside during the “first pass” by the Board, and were brought forward at this time for further consideration:

• DSD Project 5110-01-2 (Polar bear population inventory in Davis Strait ):

Michelle Wheatley noted that this has in fact been designed as a five-year project, but NWMB formats do not have provision to display more than three years. Polar bears have not been identified as a research priority for the Baffin Region. On account of this, the proposal does not meet the evaluation criteria for multi-year funding, so approval would have to be year-by-year. The proposal scored high in the other categories, and a good case can be made for why the work should be done. It should also be recognized that polar bear studies have consumed more than one quarter of research support provided through the NWMB to date. There are other important competing uses for NWRT polar bear research funds even now, notably the work that will probably have to continue with respect to the M’Clintock Channel population. Michelle cited a number of technical difficulties with the proposal, including the unknown nature of the “non-disposable” scientific items that are budgeted for purchase, and the apparent intent not to use the free facilities available at CWS for archiving sample materials. The anticipated funding from the PCSP has apparently not been confirmed.

Gordon Koshinsky asked if the proponent had attempted to secure funding from any of the other jurisdictions that share this polar bear population, notably Quebec , Labrador , and Greenland . Ben Kovic questioned whether the proponent could effectively manage more than one major polar bear research project concurrently, and how this workload would impact on the completion of other polar bear studies that have been underway for some time. Michelle was unable to answer these questions.

The Board decided to defer decision on the matter of funding this proposal, pending clarification from the proponent and/or his Department with respect to the various concerns that were raised.

• DOE Project 5130-01-2 (Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to climate change):

Michelle Wheatley reminded the Members that a year ago the Board conditionally approved this project for multi-year funding, subject to satisfactory progress being made in the first year. In each of the remaining two years of the study, it is planned to capture and examine 20-30 family groups of bears as they leave their denning areas in the spring, and up to 200 bears of all ages and both sexes while they are ashore in early fall. This will provide comparative data from earlier years with respect to litter size, condition and survival rates. Owing to the historical data and the continuing availability of bears, the field work will be conducted in Manitoba .

David Alagalak stated that last year the KWF asked the proponents for $1,500 to engage the members in a conference call to discuss the proposal, but this call never materialised. He would not be able to support the proposal without evidence of KWF approval. Michelle noted that there was a letter on file from KWF stating support for the project, so the researchers evidently proceeded on that basis. David replied that if this was so he had not seen the letter nor participated in its preparation.

Meeka Mike observed that there was no indication of funding support from Manitoba . She considered this to be a serious shortcoming. Michelle reckoned that this was related to the fact that there was no harvesting of these bears in Manitoba . Meeka suggested that since Manitobans benefit from these bears through tourism, Manitoba should be an active partner in the project.

Meeka reiterated a long-standing concern of hers regarding the effects of handling and immobilising bears on their health and performance. David stated that Arviat hunters will not eat the meat of bears that were previously drugged. Renewable Resource Officers in the communities regularly discourage or even prohibit people from eating the meat of bears that have been drugged within the past three years. The effect of all this is to make a large portion of the polar bear population unavailable to local people in areas where this kind of research is undertaken.

Okalik Eegeesiak observed that there are many alternative sources of funding for research projects pertaining to climate change.

Gordon Koshinsky offered the following observations:

• The NWMB in its various recent planning initiatives has expressed a need to move toward a more holistic perspective in its deliberations, including taking account of such large-scale perturbations as climate change;

• The work that Drs. Sterling and Lunn have had underway on polar bears in the Churchill area is one of the most convincing, or at least one of the most cited, items of evidence that climate change is occurring in the Arctic and that it is having tangible effects on key wildlife species;

• The proponents for this project are among the most respected Arctic researchers in the world;

• Approaching Manitoba for a funding contribution might be interpreted by Manitobans as an invitation to revive their interest in polar bear harvesting;

• There is no evidence that the meat of bears that have been tranquillised poses any kind of long-term health risk to humans.

The Board decided (Resolution 2001- 018) not to approve NWRT funding support for this project for 2001/02.

• DOE Project 5130-01-3 (Seasonal movements and home range size of adult male polar bears in western Hudson Bay ):

Michelle Wheatley noted that this would be the third and final year of what was designed as a three-year project. The object is to continue the development and testing of satellite transmitters for deployment in the outer ears of primarily adult male polar bears. Such animals are not candidates for radio collars, which has to date precluded effective study of such matters as ranges and movements of this half of the adult polar bear population.

Meeka Mike and David Alagalak repeated their concerns about the possible effects of handling and drugging polar bears. Moses Koonoo stated that Inuit have observed that polar bears that are repeatedly handled and tranquillised end up having difficulty hunting for their prey. Moses also stated that the flavour of the meat is definitely affected by these procedures.

The Board decided(Resolution 2001- 019)to approve NWRT funding support for this project in the amount of $10,000 for one year (2001/02), subject to routine administrative arrangements and conditional on the proponent:

• Demonstrating to the KWF and to the NWMB the tags to be used;
• Obtaining the approval of the KWF; and
• Providing confirmation that all funding identified in the proposal is in place.

12.B Allocation of NWMB Study Funding for 2001/02

Michelle Wheatley reminded the Members that the Board annually establishes a budget out of its internal operating funds that is then available to support studies by other-than-government agencies. She referred to the briefing materials she had prepared for the present meeting that pertained to this NWMB program.

Michelle advised that NWMB Study funding approved last year (for 2000/01) totalled $215,050 for eight projects. Funding conditions were met and contribution agreements were signed with respect to seven of these projects, for an actual funding commitment of $154,050. Interim reports and tentative financial statements have been received for six of the projects, and on that basis actual expenditures for the year are projected to be $93,540. Michelle noted that her briefing material contained her evaluations of the projects that received NWMB Study funding in 2000/01, as well as interim progress reports prepared by the proponents.

Michelle called the attention of the Members to five issues pertaining to NWMB Study funding that in her view warranted the consideration of the Board. These matters have implications for the present exercise but more particularly for the administration of this program in future years. It may be appropriate for the Board to:

• Encourage a more focussed effort by prospective and actual funding recipients to ensure that projects are planned and executed so as to assist the Board in exercising its mandate for wildlife management;
• Consider whether other funding sources might be more appropriate for projects that are oriented to improvement of habitat;
• Better define the boundaries for participation by Government agencies in projects that are funded by this program;
• Establish parameters to govern assistance (or not) for test fisheries;
• More rigorously enforce the deadlines established for receipt of proposals.

Michelle explained her rationale for identifying each of these issues.

Michelle called the attention of the Board to the request from the Sanikiluaq HTO to carry forward the $20,000 approved last year to conduct a one-year study of the benthic invertebrates of polynya sites in and near the Belcher Islands . These sites serve as wintering areas for Hudson Bay Eiders. This is a summer project, to be conducted by scuba-diving, and has the active participation of CWS. The community boat that is to serve as the platform for the work ended up being re-assigned to a different project last summer and was not available. Indications are that there will be no such conflict in 2001.

The Board decided (Resolution 2001- 020) to approve the request from the Sanikiluaq HTO to carry forward $20,000 of NWMB Study funding for Project 5214-00-1 (Foraging ecology and diet of Hudson Bay Eiders wintering at polynyas in the Belcher Islands).

Turning to the nine new project proposals for NWMB Study funding for 2001/02, Michelle referred the Members to the briefing binder for copies of the applications along with her (Michelle’s) analyses and recommendations. The proposals were evaluated against the same criteria and with reference to the same research priorities as were used to evaluate the NWRT proposals. These new proposals embody funding implications that total $245,500 for 2001/02. Jim Noble advised that the NWMB budget for this line item for the coming year is $90,000 plus whatever interest the NWMB will earn on its current accounts in the course of the year. The total funding available is thus of the order of $120,000.

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:

Project 5201-01-1 (Bowhead habitat stewardship at Igaliqtuuq):

The proponent, the Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board, proposes to establish baseline data on bowhead whales and their habitats at Isabella Bay by photo-cataloguing individual whales and recording aspects of the habitats in which they occur. Potential impacts (both positive and negative) of increased tourism activity based on these whales will also be evaluated. Field work will be conducted by WWF and the community of Clyde River , in conjunction with a project ecologist yet to be appointed. Dr. Sue Cosens (DFO) and Kerry Finley (independent consultant) are specialist advisors to the project. Several other agencies (not all of them confirmed) are listed as providing support for the project. These include DOE, DSD, NTI, NRI, and Kakivak Corporation.

Members expressed some concern about the possibility that some aspects of this project might come into conflict with negotiations that are in progress to develop an Inuit Impact and Benefits Agreement in connection with establishing a National Wildlife Area. Burt Dean suggested that such a problem could be managed if it did emerge. Ben Kovic expressed reservations about Kerry Finley being identified as an advisor to the project. In Ben’s view, Mr. Finley has expressed unfounded opinions in the past about the status of the eastern Arctic bowhead population, and has misused the input of local elders in some of his previous reports. Kevin McCormick explained that DOE funding support would be by way of the Habitat Stewardship Program, for which DOE is the lead agency. The Program is co-managed by DOE, DFO and Parks Canada, and is meant to be complementary to SARA. The Program recognises that habitat is often a key limiting factor with respect to species at risk.

The Board decided (Resolution 2001- 022) to approve NWMB Study funding to the Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board in the amount of $30,000 for Project 5201-01-1 for 2001/02, to assist in obtaining baseline data on bowhead whales and their habitats at Isabella Bay, this subject to obtaining confirmation from the proponents that:

• All of the other funding identified in the proposal is in place;
• The community of Clyde River supports the project; and
• The project will not interfere with the IIBA negotiations.

Project 5204-01-1 (Charr abundance in an improved stream at Clyde River ):

The proponent, James Qillaq of Clyde River, proposes to follow up on a rock-removal project conducted on a certain stream in the Clyde River area in 1993 to promote the passage of charr and ultimately to increase the charr population. The plan is to install a traditional fish weir to determine whether the number of fish in the stream has increased.

The Board noted that it was not clear from the proposal whether any baseline data existed from 1993 or earlier to serve as a basis for comparison, and further that the project design did not indicate if or how a quantitative comparison would be attempted. The Board accordingly decided (Resolution 2001- 022) not to approve NWMB Study funding to James Qillaq to document charr abundance in an improved stream at Clyde River .

Project 5212-01-1 (Bowhead whale migration):

The proponent, Adamee Veevee of Pangnirtung, proposes to determine whether bowhead whales encountered in Cumberland Sound in a particular season remain there, or whether they eventually move to the Clyde River area. He aims to do this through daily observations from the floe edge, and by boat and kayak in open water.

Michelle noted that subsequent to submitting the basic proposal, the proponent provided a detailed budget requesting $17,100 from the NWMB. Gordon Koshinsky expressed reservations about the proposal as it was written. Without some means of identifying individual whales, it was not clear how the observations would be interpreted. Kevin McCormick suggested that the proponent be directed to work with DFO to further develop the methodology. Gordon suggested that the possibility of obtaining material for genetic analysis concurrently be brought to the attention of DFO.

The Board decided (Resolution 2001-023) to approve NWMB Study funding to Adamee Veevee in the amount of $17,100 for Project 5212-01-1 for 2001/02, to assist in a study of bowhead whale migrations within and out from Cumberland Sound, this subject to the proponent:

• Confirming the support of the HTO;
• Arranging for administration of funding through the HTO;
• Further developing the proposal with greater emphasis on the use of photo-identification for individual whales; and
• Identifying a reasonable contribution to the project, by himself or by the HTO, either financially or in-kind.

Project 5212-01-2 (Confirmation of Arctic charr populations in lakes at Pangnirtung):

The proponent, Adamee Veevee of Pangnirtung, proposes to sample a number of lakes in that community’s resource-use area in an effort to find new stocks of charr that could be exploited by local residents. The proposal is very sketchy, and begs the question of whether this type of project is appropriate for NWMB Study funding.

The Board took note of the interpretation in effect that the NWMB mandate does not extend to promoting resource and economic development, and particularly does not extend to providing support for feasibility studies for such activities. The Board accordingly decided (Resolution 2001- 024) not to approve NWMB Study funding to James Qillaq to document the occurrence of charr populations in lakes near Pangnirtung, and reiterated its position not to fund any other work of this specific nature.

Project 5212-01-3 (Identification of new lakes for commercial fishing at Pangnirtung):

The proponent, Levi Evic of Pangnirtung, proposes to sample a number of lakes in the vicinity of that community in an effort to find charr stocks that could support commercial fishing. The Board referred to its earlier decision (Resolution 2001- 024) in deciding not to approve NWMB Study funding for this proposal.

Project 5212-01-4 (Identification of new cod-fishing areas near Pangnirtung):

The proponent, Levi Evic of Pangnirtung, proposes to sample a number of areas in the vicinity of that community in an effort to find cod stocks that could support new commercial fishing activity. The Board referred to its earlier decision (Resolution 2001- 024) in deciding not to approve NWMB Study funding for this proposal.

Project 5246-01-1 (Rationalization of charr fishing sites at Kugluktuk):

The proponent, the Angoniatit Association (HTO) at Kugluktuk, considers it prudent to reduce fishing pressure on Arctic charr stocks in the Coppermine River , and proposes to seek alternate charr stocks for commercial fishing near the community.

Michelle noted that the proposal is well developed, with a good presentation of what the proponents aim to do and why they aim to do it. The proposal does have an economic development orientation but it stems from a conservation concern, namely the desire to maintain the charr stock nearest the community for the benefit of the subsistence fishery.

A majority of Board Members could not reconcile funding this project with rejecting funding for other proposals directed to determining the feasibility of economic ventures. A motion by Moses Koonoo, seconded by Kevin McCormick, to approve NWMB Study funding to the Kugluktuk Angoniatit Association to document viable local alternatives to the Coppermine River for commercial charr fisheries in order to lessen fishing pressure on the Coppermine River was defeated.

Project 5213-01-1 (Ground survey of Peary caribou, muskoxen and wolves on Bathurst , Cornwallis, western Devon , and nearby islands):

The proponent, the Resolute Bay HTO, proposes to verify whether recent aerial surveys yielded accurate population estimates. There is local and regional concern that the survey methods were not well suited to the clumped populations of caribou and muskoxen that occur on these islands, and that these populations may have been under-estimated. The HTO also anticipates that if its members participate directly in a verification exercise of this nature they will be more amenable to accepting management changes that may be necessary if the populations are confirmed to be in a depleted state. This is in fact the second year of this project. It was also supported by NWMB Study funding last year, although no report on that work has been received.

The Board decided (Resolution 2001- 025) to approve NWMB Study funding to the Resolute Bay HTO in the amount of $30,000 for Project 5213-01-1 for 2001/02 to assist in verifying recent aerial surveys for Peary caribou and muskoxen on the nearby Arctic islands, this subject to the proponents:

• Confirming that the other funding identified in the proposal is in place; and
• Submitting a satisfactory report on the work conducted last year.

Project 5264-01-1 (Range-wide monitoring of Beverly and Qamanirjuaq caribou, their habitat, and community use in relation to changing climate and land use):

The proponent, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, proposes to compile existing information and traditional knowledge about these two caribou herds, and in particular to identify indicators that could be monitored over time to show how the caribou and their habitats are faring in relation to various stressors. The proposal is modelled on similar work being undertaken elsewhere with respect to the Porcupine caribou herd.

The Board decided (Resolution 2001- 026) to approve NWMB Study funding to the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board in the amount of $30,000 for Project 5264-01-1 for 2001/02, to assist in compiling information for the identification of indicators leading to the development of a monitoring system for changes in caribou populations and their habitats. This approval is subject to obtaining from the proponent:

• Confirmation that all of the other funding identified in the proposal is in place; and
• A satisfactory explanation for why it is not proposed to involve a Nunavut resident in co-ordinating the project.

In summarising this agenda item Michelle Wheatley advised that the Board had approved NWMB Study funding for 2001/02 in the total amount of $107,100 for four projects.

Wednesday, 21 March 2001

The Chairperson, Ben Kovic , re-convened the meeting at 8:45 a.m.

3. Minutes: Review and Approval

The Board decided to defer consideration of minutes from previous meetings and conference calls that had not yet been adopted. These items pertained to:

• Regular Meeting No. 27, held on 27 November to 01 December 2000 ;
• Conference Call No. 54, conducted on 19 December 2000 ;
• Special Meeting No. 9, held on 15-16 January 2001; and
• Conference Call No. 55, conducted on 12 February 2001.

4.Financial and Administrative Business

4.A Financial Variance Report as at 28 February 2001

The Board decided to forego consideration of the current financial variance report.

4.B Preparation of Workplan and Budget for the Second Contract Period

Ben Kovic welcomed Jim Pealow of AMCES, the consultant group retained by the NWMB to develop input for preparation of the NWMB workplan and budget for 2003- 2013. Mr. Pealow tabled Version 2 of his Nunavut Wildlife Management Board 2003 – 2013 Plans and Budgets, and led the Board through an examination of those portions of the document pertaining to strategic direction and new strategies, including projected financial requirements. In the course of the ensuing discussion, the following points were made and conclusions drawn:

Everything in the NWMB workplan and funding proposals should clearly relate back to the NLCA, and more particularly to the mandate of the NWMB;

It will be advantageous in making proposals to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and innovation;

• There should be no reluctance to identify genuine needs, regardless of actual funding assumptions or expectations;

• There will be genuine operational differences between the first and second contract periods, and these should be taken into account in planning;

• Everything that is put forward must be on the assumption that it will have to be vigorously defended, and all background information and calculations should be fully worked out and readily available even if not presented at the outset

• Performance measures should be incorporated to the greatest extent possible;

• A greater emphasis on IQ in the second contract period would be consistent with a number of new legislative, administrative and protocol requirements;

• The Board needs to give more consideration and offer more guidance regarding if and how it would be appropriate to budget for public hearings;

• Justification for ongoing collection and analysis of harvest data needs to be strengthened and better rationalised if this item is going to be put forward;

• The Board needs to come to grips with the question of whether to pursue adequate funding for the RWOs and HTOs via its own submissions, or whether to try to recruit NTI to carry forward this responsibility.

Mr. Pealow departed the meeting at this point. In continuing its discussions of this matter, the Board noted and/or concluded/decided that:

• The request developed by the NWMB, in concert with the other IPGs, for an extension to June 18 of the present end-of-March deadline for submission of the planning materials has gone forward to the Implementation Panel;

• If this request for extension is approved, it should not be assumed at this stage that it would constitute the final indication of flexibility that may be available;

• Michael d'Eça will prepare a briefing note setting out issues, goals and options for preparing and presenting the NWMB planning documents;

• The Board will come to grips with the briefing note via a conference call, and will give consideration to the need to establish a dedicated working group;

• It is anticipated that Michael, with the assistance of senior NWMB staff, will develop a next version of the planning documents for consideration by the Board, possibly at a workshop in conjunction with the next Board meeting;

• Kevin McCormick will provide a strategic window to the Board in the interim, and the consultant will be retained to provide advice as may be required;

• Kevin will attempt to contact DIAND officials who will be involved with or linked to the negotiations, including if possible DIAND’s Chief Implementation Negotiator, in an effort to learn about the underlying parameters that DIAND presumably has established to guide its consideration of the planning materials that it will receive and the protocols that it will follow;

• Prior to submitting its documentation to the Panel, it may be advantageous for the Board or for NWMB officials to meet or otherwise interact:

• With the NWMB’s co-management partners, to confirm linkages and anticipated ongoing co-management relationships; and

• With the other IPGs, to promote consistency of presentation;

• The NWMB should strive for authorization to represent its own interests in the negotiations.

5. Chairperson, Senior Staff, Advisors’ and Members’ Reports

The Board decided to forego consideration of the activity reports tabled by the Chairperson, senior staff, and the Fisheries Advisor. Members were referred to copies of these materials in the briefing binders.

5.E Legal Advisor’s Report

Michael d'Eça referred to his regular activity report in the meeting binder. He then proceeded to update the Board specifically on his investigations regarding the rates of remuneration for members of Boards and Tribunals that are established by the Federal Government. Treasury Board recognises four categories of such agencies, and the NWMB has been placed in the lowest-paid category (IV). The daily rate of remuneration for Category IV members is only $200 – $250, whereas for Category I members it is $475 – $550. The NWMB is in the same category as at least some agencies that would appear to have a much narrower and less onerous responsibility. It is of interest that the Inuvialuit Arbitration Board is in Category II.

Michael advised that despite making contact with senior officials in the Privy Council Office who have this matter as part of their mandate, all of his information to date has in fact resulted from an Access-to-Information initiative that he set in motion. It is not yet clear whether officials themselves will yet be more forthcoming, but is seems possible that they may not in fact be able to provide very much by way of explanation or assistance. The process of assignment gives every indication of being quite arbitrary and lacking analysis. There is mention in the material that was obtained of several criteria that are used to establish the category to which an agency will be assigned. The criteria mentioned are complexity, diversity, scope and impact of the activities performed. Officials also mentioned “internal relativity”.

Michael undertook to develop for the consideration of the Board a formal submission to the Privy Council Office urging that the NWMB be re-categorised.

5.G Members Reports and Concerns

David Alagalak brought two items to the attention of the Board:

•  Status Report on the Keewatin Wildlife Federation (RWO)

David thanked the Board for its recent financial contribution to the KWF. With the help of these funds the RWO was able to bring the regional HTOs to a planning workshop in Arviat. A number of new protocols were adopted, putting in place consistent procedures for such matters as hiring of staff. Amendments to the KWF bylaws were adopted and forwarded to the Registrar of Societies. These included a name change for the organization, hence to be known as the Kivalliq Wildlife Board.

•  TAH for Bowhead Whales

David urged that the NWMB undertake or support work that would lead to a larger harvest of bowhead whales in Nunavut . In David’s view, which is supported by hunters and elders to whom he has spoken, the number of bowheads in the NSA has increased substantially since the cessation of commercial whaling. Whereas there were probably only about 500 – 600 bowheads remaining at that time, the number now is probably 4-5 times higher. The harvest rates that are currently permitted do not reflect the strength of this increase. David suggested that the increasing abundance of killer whales in the eastern Arctic in recent years may be linked to the increasing number of bowhead whales. According to traditional knowledge, killer whales were also abundant in the period prior to bowhead whales being hunted to the point of extreme depletion. The traditional view is that young bowhead whales are a preferred food for killer whales and will attract them into an area. This could be a negative factor in maintaining high populations of narwhal and beluga, which are also preyed upon by killer whales. Taken together, it is deemed to be another reason for increasing the harvest of bowheads.

Makabe Nartok expressed his appreciation that his community (Kugaaruk) was included in the recent tour regarding community-based management with respect to narwhal. Makabe observed that NWMB regular meetings are always too rushed, with inadequate opportunity for the Board to interact with the community. Ben Kovic acknowledged the hospitality of Kugaaruk residents, and those of all the other participating communities, in hosting the recent tour.

Moses Koonoo announced that his appointing agency (Qikiqtani Inuit Association) interprets that his term is about to expire and has invited expressions of interest for a new appointment. He (Moses) did not put his name forward. Moses stated that he had enjoyed his time with the Board and the opportunity it provided for him to gain new perspectives on such a wide range of issues. Moses stated that he now has a better appreciation of the need to actively manage wildlife resources.

Moses expressed concern that in some areas, including around his own community ( Arctic Bay ), polar bears are far more abundant and cause far more problems than tends to be acknowledged by the polar bear biologists. It is now almost impossible to cache meat outside the community without having it disturbed by bears. He urged that more attention be paid to local and traditional knowledge in considering such matters. Ben Kovic noted that he had never heard a wildlife biologist state a wildlife population number with a high degree of confidence. He agreed that IQ had a larger role to play in such matters than it was usually given.

Gordon Koshinsky stated his understanding that polar bears are highly dependent on seals. He asked if people out on the land were observing anything different about the behaviour of seals, perhaps in connection with changing ice conditions, that might be the reason for some of the apparent changes in polar bear behaviour or abundance. Moses Koonoo suggested that polar bears were simply moving around in relation to their food supply. This is a common phenomenon with wildlife. For example, caribou will move to a different area if they have trampled one area for a long time. Before food became available in stores, Inuit behaved the same way. Ben Kovic expressed the opinion that harp seals were replacing ringed seals in NSA waters. They are much more aggressive, and probably eat the same foods.

Gordon noted that a number of topics had arisen already in this meeting that might be good subjects for demonstrations or mini-workshops for the Board. Examples might include radio- and/or satellite-tagging, estimating the size of animal populations, setting total allowable harvests for charr fisheries, parameters of reproduction in marine mammals, genetic stock differentiation, the use of anaesthetics to immobilise animals, and the NWMB’s new web site. Board Members agreed that this was a valid idea and suggested that staff work with the Departments to accommodate it at future meetings.

Ben Kovic agreed with Makabe’s observation that the NWMB meeting agenda is invariably over-crowded. Ben suggested that the Board might consider extending the number of days for meetings, or maybe having dedicated workshops on selected topics. It is important not to burn out the Members. At the same time, Members need to demonstrate a great deal of commitment in order to be effective. Ben especially urged that Members keep their commitments to attend meetings.

•  Completion of Assignments and Implementation of Resolutions

The Board decided to forego consideration of the Task List pertaining to assignments arising from the previous Board meeting.