|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Download
PDF (136K) Printer
Friendly |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARDMINUTES: MEETING No. 30
IQALUIT, 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2001
Agenda Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries Agenda for Regular Meeting No. 30 Financial and Administrative Business
Chairperson, Senior Staff, Advisors’ and Members’ Reports
Completion of Assignments and Implementation of Resolutions
Nunavut Wildlife (DSD) Issues and Decisions
Meetings, Workshops and Other Pertinent Events Date and Location of Next Meeting
Tuesday, 18 September 2001
1. Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries
Ben Kovic called the 30 th Regular Meeting of the NWMB to order at 9:00 am . He welcomed all the participants and asked Joan Scottie to lead an opening prayer.
Ben complemented the staff on their fast and efficient action in re-arranging the Meeting to Iqaluit on very short notice when weather conditions made it impossible to proceed to Igloolik as was originally planned. Ben noted that copies of the new book on Marine Mammals of Nunavut were distributed to Members along with the briefing materials for the Meeting. Ben expressed his appreciation to the people who worked so hard to make this book a reality. A release ceremony was held at Middle School in Iqaluit last Friday afternoon, and was well attended. The book has drawn a lot of praise. It is planned that the next book in the series will deal with terrestrial mammals.
2. Agenda for Regular Meeting No. 30
The Board decided (Resolution 2001- 070) to accept the agenda for the Meeting as presented, with the following deletions:
Jim Noble noted that the Harvest Study Committee plans to meet following adjournment of the Regular Meeting later this afternoon.
3. Minutes: Review and Approval
The Board adopted (Resolution 2001- 071) the minutes for Regular Meeting 29, conducted at Ikaluktutiak on 5-6 June 2001, subject to the following revisions as pointed out by Michelle Wheatley:
The Board considered the minutes for Conference Call 58, conducted on 21 June 2001 . Jim noted that there was no quorum for this Conference Call, and it was more in the nature of a discussion among those Members who were available. No formal decisions were taken, and no motions were tendered or passed.
Michael d’E V a recalled that the main items on the agenda for Conference Call 58 were the report on the closure of the Qikiqtarjuaq narwhal hunt last year, and the NWMB 10-year workplan and funding proposal. The workplan was briefly considered, and was approved by the Board at a subsequent Conference Call. The Qikiqtarjuaq narwhal closure report has been distributed, but there is no record of an NWMB Resolution approving the document. Michael understood that Ben was going to contact Board Members individually to canvass for such approval. Ben replied that in addition to the three Members who had indicated no dispute with the report in the course of the Conference Call, he had obtained telephone endorsement from Gordon Koshinsky and Moses Koonoo. The Board considered and then adopted (Resolution 2001- 072) the minutes for Conference Call 59, conducted on 31 July 2001, with one revision to item 6 (second paragraph) as proposed by Michael.
Ben suggested that it might be useful and appropriate for the Board to adopt more formal mechanisms and procedures to ensure that all Members had convenient reference to all Board decisions and ensuing actions. Kevin suggested that certain categories of materials should be routinely circulated, and that guidelines were needed to define those categories. He suggested that some categories of correspondence be put in the briefing binders for Board meetings. Gordon suggested that the correspondence log could be refined to provide an outline of actions taken and responses received in connection with Board decisions. Michael suggested that any matter involving correspondence with a Minister would be appropriate for this kind of special attention and reference back to Members.
The Board referred the matter to staff, to come up with workable mechanisms to keep Members better informed of actions taken and responses received with respect to Board decisions.
4. Financial and Administrative Business 4.A Variance Report as at 31 August 2001 and Disposition of Carry-Forwards
Gordon Tomlinson reported that a year-end surplus of $92,584, or 1.8 % of the revised budget, is currently projected for the present fiscal year. The revised budget, in the total amount of $5,229,237, includes $159,829 to be carried forward from last year. Access to those unexpended funds requires the concurrence of DIAND, sought annually via the Board’s November submission. Michael d’E V a reminded the Board that the new funding agreement provides for such carry-forwards, as long as the funds are expended on identified items that pertain to the NWMB mandate under the NLCA.
Gordon led the Board through a detailed consideration of mandated work requirements for which progress and/or delivery would be enhanced by expenditure of funds that are available for carry-forward from 2000/01. Recommended line items for disposition of these funds were: certain capital acquisitions, other-than-Board meetings, wildlife conservation education, and the Wildlife Harvest Study.
The Board decided (Resolution 2001 – 073) to accept the Variance Report as presented, and to allocate the unexpended funds from last year as outlined therein.
Gordon Tomlinson referred the Members to the formal Audit Report for the previous fiscal year. The auditors pointed out that a few of the balance sheet accounts were not reconciled, but this is not a serious problem. The auditors identified no shortcomings with respect to the actual financial statement. The Board decided (Resolution 2001- 074) to accept the Audit Report for 2000/01 as put forward by the auditors.
Ben Kovic reminded the Board of the need to appoint an auditor for next year. Kevin McCormick asked how the fees charged by MacKay Landau might compare with those of other providers of the same service. Gordon replied that the cost of the annual audit has been about $12,000. The work has not been tendered recently, but the MacKay Landau charges seem reasonable, they do good work, and they are very familiar with the financial operations of the NWMB.
The Board decided (Resolution 2001- 075) to retain the accounting firm MacKay Landau to provide auditing service for the NWMB for 2001/02.
4.C Workplan Reporting for 2000/01
Gordon Tomlinson reminded the Members of the requirement to report to DIAND by the end of November with respect to the previous year’s workplan. The November report must include a financial accounting. Gordon noted that the overall positive variance of $159,829 had already been discussed, and allocated by the Board as per Resolution 2001- 073. The largest item of under-expenditure, in absolute terms, was with respect to meetings and workshops other than those of the Board per se.
4.D Workplan and Funding Proposal for 2003 - 2013
Michael d’E V a referred the Members to the NWMB submission as contained in the red-covered spiral-bound document that was distributed. The submission was sent to the Implementation Panel, with concurrent distribution to the Parties to the Agreement, on August 15. Michael explained the organization of the document as embodied in its four main Parts.
Stephen Atkinson stated that, distribution of the document to his Department notwithstanding, this was the first time that he personally had seen the NWMB submission. He observed that the document echoes many of the concepts that are currently being discussed at DSD. More and better communication between the participating agencies would benefit the development of all the submissions. Gordon Koshinsky urged that personal contacts be made to ensure that staff-on-the-ground among the NWMB’s co-management partners have copies of the NWMB submission.
The NWMB submission was discussed with NTI officials yesterday. Those officials concurred that the NWMB should seek to represent itself in the negotiations rather than have its submission presented by an intermediary party. Appearance before the chief negotiators for the Parties will tentatively take place the week of October 9.
Jim Noble noted the absence, despite invitations to them, of DSD (also DFO and DOE) at the meeting with NTI yesterday. Kevin McCormick suggested that it was not too late for more and better interaction, although realistically not all aspects of the negotiations will be shareable by all the participants throughout the process. He noted that CWS has not yet been formally advised that the process of negotiating the next ten years of program delivery is actually underway.
Kevin found it interesting that the IPGs were encouraged to move forward on their submissions far ahead of the Parties to the Agreement. Michael suggested that it was only the IPGs that were operating on a realistic schedule if negotiations are to be completed on time. Okalik Eegeesiak recalled that intentions were expressed at the outset to liase with the other IPGs to identify elements of shared purpose and to explore common approaches in developing submissions, but apparently this was not followed up. On one specific matter, Okalik wondered if the aspirations or intentions of any of the other negotiating agencies might be pertinent to the IQ trust fund being proposed by the NWMB. The NWMB may not be the most appropriate agency to administer such a fund, and a better-coordinated approach might be very beneficial. Michael noted that the RWOs and HTOs also had a vital interest in IQ.
Kevin and Michael observed a lack of clarity about how the overall negotiating process is being managed and overseen. There is a basic need for a better understanding of time lines. Following discussion it was decided that the NWMB would write to the Implementation Panel, with copies to the Parties to the NLCA, setting out the NWMB concerns about the process underway to develop implementation contracts for the next planning period. Kevin stressed that the NWMB should not feel bound to the details of its existing submission if ensuing clarifications overturn any of the fundamental assumptions that have been made.
5. Chairperson, Senior Staff, Advisors’ and Members’ Reports
Ben Kovic referred the Members to his report in the briefing binder. He highlighted his work in helping to develop a new oceans curriculum for Grade 10. The aim was to complete this exercise by this fall, but this is no longer a possibility.
5.B Executive Director’s Report
Jim Noble referred to his report in the briefing binder. He focussed his discussion on the recent work of the Nunavut Fisheries Working Group. It was through the efforts of this Group that the Baffin Fisheries Coalition was formed. The Coalition has agreed to work together, and to keep the new 0A turbot quota intact. The Coalition has retained a consultant, Jerry Ward, to help them achieve their goals.
5.C Wildlife Management Director’s Report
Michelle Wheatley referred the Members to her three-month report. In response to a request from Kevin McCormick for an update on progress with respect to the first item in her report, Michelle replied that it had been agreed in the course of a number of conference calls that Dr. Peter Usher will develop a discussion paper on the role of the co-management boards in the new (13-step) COSEWIC process. Completion of the paper will be followed by a workshop to establish the necessary protocols. The process as outlined will not necessarily resolve all concerns.
5.D Finance and Administration Director’s Report
Jim Noble referred the Board members to Gordon Tomlinson’s report in the meeting binder. Considerable attention in the past three months was directed to further developing, managing and trouble-shooting the NWMB local area network.
Michael d’E V a briefly highlighted the content of his report contained in the briefing binder, including reference to his input to development of the NWMB workplan and funding proposal for the next planning period.
Michael perceived ongoing uncertainty about the roles and responsibilities of Board Members vis-à-vis their appointing agencies. Michael stressed the importance of both the appointing agencies and the appointees understanding and respecting the functional independence of Board Members. A common route to challenging a decision of an administrative tribunal (such as the NWMB) is to prove that the decision was not reached independently. Michael referred to a paper he presented at the administrative law conference last year in which he put forward a number of recommendations on this matter that all the IPGs should consider adopting. Michael offered to make a presentation to the Board on the subject if so invited.
With respect to the present state of uncertainty surrounding Moses Koonoo’s term as an NWM Board Member, Jim Noble elaborated that QIA officials understand the issue and are working to resolve it. Meanwhile, he (Jim) is proceeding on the assumption that Moses will be the QIA-appointed Member for a full four-year period.
On behalf of himself and the Board, Jim expressed his appreciation for Michael’s hard and efficient work over the summer. Jim noted that Michael’s dedication to the affairs of the NWMB had impacted his family vacation plans.
5.F Fisheries Advisor’s Report
Jim Noble referred the Members to Ray Andrews’ report in the briefing binder. Jim informed the Board that Ray has resigned his position as NWMB Fisheries Advisor in order to take up duties as Director of Government and Industry Relations with Fishery Products International. The Board will need to decide whether to seek a replacement for Ray in order to continue having access to this type of expertise and input. The cost-sharing arrangement with DSD will also need to be re-evaluated.
The Members agreed that it would probably be useful to maintain someone in the general capacity that Ray had provided, but that the output requirements and the corresponding skill mix should be carefully identified. Ray himself might be a key source of advice on what is needed and on who might provide it. Some of the applicants in the recent competition by the Baffin Fisheries Coalition for their advisor might be prospective candidates. The Members also agreed that the Board should make an appropriate gesture of appreciation to Ray for the valuable service he had provided to the NWMB in particular, and to the development of the Nunavut fisheries in general.
5.G Members’ Reports and Concerns
Ben Kovic encouraged all the Members to provide reports on any functions that they attend or in which they participate on behalf of the NWMB.
Kevin McCormick brought to the attention of the Board a recent article by a WWF official published in their Arctic Bulletin No. 2.01 (dated 11 June 2001 ) referring to “over-harvest” of narwhal and beluga in Nunavut . The article is heavily based on reports that appeared earlier in Nunatsiaq News. Kevin noted that two different individuals had asked him about the article, and he wondered if the reference to over-harvesting having occurred should be left unchallenged by the NWMB. Ben Kovic advised that he had already discussed the matter with WWF officials, and that a correction will appear in the next issue. WWF officials have undertaken to check carefully with the NWMB in future prior to publishing material that pertains to wildlife management issues in the NSA.
Okalik Eegeesiak brought a number of questions and observations to the table:
Ben Kovic noted that Gordon Koshinsky had advised his appointing agency (DFO) that he would not be seeking re-appointment when his current term with the NWMB expires in December. Ben wanted to acknowledge Gordon’s contribution to the work of the NWMB over the past eight years.
Ben stressed the need for greater and more reliable commitment on the part of Board Members regarding their availability for Board meetings and conference calls. Staff are experiencing considerable difficulty ensuring the participation of enough Members to consistently provide a quorum. Ben distributed a “declaration of commitment” form that he had drafted for the consideration of the Members whereby they might confirm their availability. This might be a particularly useful innovation with so many new Board Members, both recent and imminent.
Kevin McCormick considered this to be a legitimate concern. When Members commit to participate it is imperative that they actually are available. Signing a commitment form may not achieve this. Perhaps expectations need to be more clearly stated. Moses Koonoo declared that he did not object to such a form. He occasionally had difficulty participating in conference calls because he lived and worked in two different communities. It was very important for him to have adequate notice.
Okalik asked if the NWMB had a bylaw or a policy pertaining to truancy or incapacity on the part of Board Members. Michael advised that the NWMB Operating Procedures have a section on attendance and participation wherein it is stated that a pattern of tardiness or lack of fitness to participate in meetings shall result in notification to the appointing agency. There is also provision for a Member to be removed for cause. The Board may want to re-visit these provisions.
6. Completion of Assignments and Implementation of Resolutions
Jim Noble stated a need to revisit the minutes for recent Board meetings and conference calls in order to identify any tasks that have not been addressed.
Michael d’E V a observed that the pre-hearing report on community-based management (item 13 of the summary) has not been fully completed as is indicated. However the most important immediate issues have been addressed via the Qikiqtarjuaq hunt closure report. Consideration might be given to deferring further reporting until the three-year review of the community-based management program.
7. Environment Canada (CWS): Issues and Decisions 7.A Recovery Strategy for Peary Caribou
Michelle Wheatley reminded the Board about the draft National Recovery Strategy for Peary Caribou and Arctic-Island Caribou that Kevin McCormick tabled at the last Board meeting. She recalled being assigned to review the document and to develop recommendations for the Board.
A somewhat condensed version of the Draft Recovery Strategy was subsequently received via COSEWIC and is included in the current briefing binder. The document was developed according to the 1991 designation of the species, namely endangered ( Queen Elizabeth Islands and Banks Island ), and threatened (remainder of the southern tier of the Arctic Islands ). Those (1991) designations were based on a 1990 COSEWIC status report. The objectives in the draft recovery strategy that is now under consideration actually reflect revised designations founded on more current knowledge. A new status report is being solicited.
The Recovery Strategy as currently written does not take full account of the new political and operational realities that stem from the creation of Nunavut and settlement of the land claim. The current version continues to recommend such interventions as live captures, captive breeding and wolf control, as well as restrictions on harvesting. Most of the pertinent communities have already instituted self-imposed harvesting restrictions, and population levels of Peary caribou may already be improving. Moses Koonoo urged that if it became necessary to put more emphasis on controlling wolves, that local hunters be assisted to do so rather than bringing in professional hunters. Stephen Atkinson pointed out that the Territorial Governments would be responsible to implement the recovery strategy, and administrative arrangements with the GNWT would need to be worked out.
Kevin McCormick observed that the matter demonstrates some of the procedural matters that remain to be worked out with respect to dealing with species at risk. There are also some fundamental issues yet to be resolved including, for example the role of the CWS. Michael d’E V a suggested that the agencies should be obtaining their interim guidance on such matters from the impending SARA legislation and from the protocols for COSEWIC communication that are currently being developed.
The Board decided (Resolution 2001- 076) not to approve the Recovery Strategy for Peary caribou as put forward by RENEW (the national recovery program established by the Wildlife Ministers Council of Canada), and in conveying this response, urge that:
The Board also decided that there would be merit in writing to the various range jurisdictions, encouraging them to continue any appropriate recovery actions that they might already have underway even without a formal Recovery Strategy.
7.B Status Designations by COSEWIC for Species that Range into the NSA
Kevin McCormick reported that COSEWIC met in April and assessed the status of species suspected of being at risk of extinction or extirpation from Canada . Four of the species that were assessed range into the NSA: Canada lynx, harlequin duck, and two species of wolffish. The Canada lynx was confirmed as Not at Risk, the wolffishes were designated as Threatened, and the harlequin duck (South Baffin Island-wintering population) was down-listed two steps, from Endangered to Special Concern. NWMB approval is sought for these revised designations.
Ben Kovic asked if COSEWIC used traditional knowledge in arriving at these designations. Kevin replied that there was input of traditional knowledge with respect to documenting the breeding location (in Greenland ) of the eastern population of harlequin ducks, but he could not vouch as to traditional knowledge input with respect to the other species. All in all, the rationale for the new designations is not well documented. Approval of the NWMB is required in order to validate any designations pertaining to species in the NSA, and the Board should not be rushed into making its determinations.
Okalik Eegeesiak asked if the NWMB had approved any COSEWIC designations previously. Ben replied that he could not recall the Board making any such decisions. Kevin suggested it was possible that some new designations could have escaped the Board’s attention.
Michael d’E V a observed that difficulties can be expected with the designation process until the new protocols have been firmly established and tested. Implementing SARA will carry very significant implications for the NWMB and for Nunavut . Jim Noble referred to the large list of species awaiting NWMB input with respect to designation. The whole process is on hold from the viewpoint of the co-management boards, pending completion of the initiative underway with Dr. Usher.
It was agreed to advise COSEWIC that the NWMB will not consider requests to endorse species designations until all the protocols for the process are in place. In communicating with COSEWIC in that regard, it would be appropriate to point out that the kind of rationale for designations that was provided with the four items currently at hand would not be adequate for the Board’s purposes.
7.C Habitat Stewardship Program
Kevin McCormick reported that the federal government has established a Habitat Stewardship Program (HSP) as part of the initiative to protect species-at-risk. The other two elements of this initiative are the 1998 Accord and the actual SARA legislation. The Program aims to enhance existing or establish new stewardship activities, and specifically to influence human behaviour with respect to habitat.
Environment Canada (EC) has overall responsibility for the HSP, but global oversight of the Program is collectively shared among DOE and two other federal agencies: DFO and Canadian Heritage (Parks Canada). No individual department controls any specific funding allocation, and no government agency (federal, provincial or territorial) is eligible to receive Program funds. Funds are provided on a matching basis with respect to dollar inputs or in-kind contributions of materials, equipment, labour, etc. Contributions from government departments cannot serve as the initial inputs. The overall (Canadian) funding level is $10 million for the first (current) year, and $15 million per year thereafter. The current annual allocation for the Arctic is $250,000.
Projects to prevent habitat degradation will have preference over projects devoted to habitat recovery. The focus will be on the habitats of species that are already deemed to be at risk, be they terrestrial or aquatic (freshwater or marine).
While the Program is funded nationally, planning is meant to be regional and delivery local. Regional Implementation Committees (RICs) will guide the Program at the intermediate level. These Committees have not yet been established for the Arctic . Groundwork for the Arctic Committees will be laid at a workshop planned for October. It may be administratively advantageous to have a single RIC for the Arctic . The Committees do not have to be in place for projects to be approved. One Nunavut project is already underway, at Igaliqtuuk. Some first-year funding is still available, and it is possible that other projects could be identified at the October meeting. It is hoped to show good progress in a short time, and progress will need to be periodically re-confirmed to Treasury Board.
One of the biggest challenges for the Arctic RIC(s) will be to make the Program relevant to northern Canada . What is most appropriate and works best in the rest of the country will not necessarily be most effective in the Arctic . For example, devoting attention to how harvesting is conducted may well be a more productive avenue for protecting species at risk in the Arctic than focussing on habitat per se. There is also the possibility that Arctic perspectives could have a national influence. In the Arctic , the co-management boards will need to decide if and how to participate. The kinds of projects that are being considered include protecting and improving streams and shorelines, monitoring population abundance, installing nesting boxes, improving hunting practices, reducing by-catches, and developing land-use guidelines.
Burt Hunt suggested that there were many projects that could be done in the Arctic that should promote the aims of the Program. Working to improve hunting methods has been oft-discussed and comes to mind. Perhaps the NWMB could apply for Program funding. DFO can be counted on for support and participation.
Michael d’E V a noted that the $250,000 allotted to the Arctic is only 2.5% of the overall Program budget. Although the human population in the Arctic is admittedly small, the Arctic makes up a very large portion of Canadian territory and would seem to warrant a much larger share of the funding. Kevin replied that pressures on habitat are generally most urgent in southern Canada . Only about 35 of the approximately 500 species deemed to be at risk in Canada occur in the Arctic . The concept of stewardship also meshes easily with private ownership of lands. Ben Kovic suggested that while the number of species at risk in the Arctic may be relatively small, the importance of the Arctic as breeding habitat would seem to point to a larger share of Program funding. Kevin suggested it was possible that the share of Program funding devoted to the Arctic might increase over time. 8. Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): Issues and Decisions 8.A Objective-Based Management Plan: Northern Hudson Bay Narwhal Karen Ditz reminded the Members that the Board decided at its last Meeting to support continuation by DFO of its efforts to develop the concept of objective-based fishery management using the Hudson Bay narwhal population as a pilot, this with the understanding that the NWMB will be kept fully informed.
Karen advised that DFO officials were still in the process of assembling and analysing the available information. DFO proposes to establish a working group of about ten individuals, and to conduct a workshop in order to carry the exercise forward. The workshop might be followed by meetings in those communities that harvest from this narwhal population. Karen requested that the NWMB:
Kevin McCormick asked if this process really differed from, or should be merged with, community-based management. Karen replied that some or all of the principles of community-based management will inevitably be embodied in objective-based management, and that both approaches have the overall aim of preventing or resolving conflicts. Objective-based management requires/involves:
Moses Koonoo and Ben Kovic suggested that the amount budgeted for honouraria seemed rather light for accommodating adequate HTO/RWO representation at a three-day workshop. Karen replied that the budget assumes only two community representatives, but this is subject to further discussions and change.
Ben asked if DFO would make up the shortfall if the NWMB contributed something less than $10,000. Karen replied that the DFO contribution will be mainly from a fund established by DFO Headquarters for this initiative. Fisheries Management in Winnipeg has made a commitment to cover the travel costs for a Winnipeg-based biologist to participate. No further resources are available in DFO.
The Board decided (Resolution 2001- 077) to provide $10,000 to DFO in support of the workshop being organized enroute to developing an objective-based management plan, on a pilot basis, for northern Hudson Bay narwhal.
8.B Charr Fisheries Management Planning for Pangnirtung: Update
Karen Ditz reported that their new Fisheries Management Technician, Leesee Papatsie, presented the available information for this project to the community in GIS format, and that the presentation was well received. Fishermen appreciated the ability to zoom in and retrieve data for particular fishing areas. The HTO has agreed to work with DFO to set up management goals and an information-gathering system. The plan is for Ms. Papatsie to continue working with the HTO to clarify certain location names and then to prioritize water bodies for future sampling.
Karen mentioned that DFO would like to demonstrate the GIS program to the Board. Ms. Papatsie was invited to come to the Meeting, whereupon she gave a short version of the presentation that she had given earlier at Pangnirtung.
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, reconvened the Meeting at 09:00 a.m.
8.C Oceans Sector Activities in Nunavut : Update
Burt Hunt reminded the Board that the Oceans Program being delivered through DFO’s Iqaluit Office for Nunavut has a number of initiatives underway according to the mandated directives of the Canadian Oceans Strategy. DFO-Oceans and CBC-Radio co-hosted a panel discussion on oceans issues in June. The NWMB Chairman participated as a member of that panel. Paul Kennedy of the CBC Ideas program conducted an oceans forum in Iqaluit that will air on CBC Radio in December. Mr. Kennedy obtained a large amount of material for the program. An Oceans Day was conducted September 13 – 15 in Iqaluit. Many people participated in various events including a beach cleanup, several school programs, and release of the book on marine mammals. Oceans Day was undoubtedly a community highlight for the year. Ben Kovic agreed that it was very successful.
Plans are underway to form a working group to begin actual development of an integrated ecosystem-based management plan for Western Hudson Bay . Background for a similar exercise is being developed for the East Baffin Region, starting with the identification of local and regional ocean-related topics of concern.
Michael d’E V a recalled that a couple of years ago DFO invited the Nunavut Marine Council to develop a Nunavut component for the Canadian Oceans Strategy. Michael noted that there had been no movement on this matter on the part of the NMC, and asked whether there had been any other progress. Burt replied that there has been no identifiable progress for Nunavut . DFO remains available and enthusiastic to assist an NMC initiative if and when it gets organized.
8.D Fish Habitat Management: Update
Burt Hunt tabled a briefing note prepared by Jordan DeGroot. Work is continuing on environmental impact assessments regarding five projects in Nunavut .
8.E New Fishery Regulations for Nunavut : Update
Burt Hunt tabled a briefing note prepared by Winston Fillatre. The Nunavut Regulatory Review Committee met in Ottawa in early August. Another meeting is planned for late October in Iqaluit, and a draft of the Regulations suitable for community consultations should be available shortly thereafter. The Committee is recommending that Nigel Banks be kept on as an advisor, at least until the next draft is done. Costs would presumably be split among DFO, NTI and the NWMB.
Michael d’E V a interjected that not all of the Committee members share Winston’s optimism about the time line for this project. A great deal has been done, but much work still remains.
8.F Personnel Management in the Eastern Arctic Area: Update
Burt Hunt referred to his outline of recent staff changes and current initiatives as set out in the briefing material. The three additional positions announced for this Area a year ago have all been staffed. These positions are an Oceans Co-ordinator, a Fisheries Management Technician, and a Fisheries Officer. Jean-Pierre Thonney, who has occupied the post of Oceans Co-ordinator, will soon be leaving on a one-year leave of absence; his position will be back-filled by Judy Anililiak formerly from Pangnirtung. Leesee Papatsie, also from Pangnirtung, is the new Fisheries Management Technician. The new Fisheries Officer is Jonathon McCotter, originally from Kugluktuk. It is intended to create a “DFO Operational Office” in a downtown location separate from the present and continuing Area Office.
Bert Dean recalled that NTI and others have been urging DFO to establish a physical presence in the Kitikmeot Region. Burt replied that this was an active file, but at the present time the Department does not have the resources to support a position in the western part of the Area.
8.G Community-Based Management for Beluga: Update
Karen Ditz reminded the Board that community-based management (CBM) for beluga was in effect at Iqaluit and Kimmirut. The Department’s top priority recently vis-à-vis CBM has been to ensure better communication with the HTOs. In the course of the annual reviews before the new season began, the Department undertook to assist the HTOs to produce a poster to inform the public in general, and beluga hunters in particular, about the CBM system for beluga.
The Department had some concerns about the Iqaluit hunt this summer. There were some indications that not all hunters were reporting fully. A couple of joint patrols were conducted to check on this hunt. Some irregularities did come to light but the HTO chose not to take any action. DFO also did a hunt-monitoring trip to Kimmirut, with the Mayukalik HTO participating. The HTOs have not yet verified that all kits have been returned, but harvest data available to September 18 are as follows: Iqaluit Kimmirut (spring only) Number landed 45 16 Number wounded and escaped 3 0 Number sunk and lost 12 0
There was some discussion about when (in what seasons) CBM is actually in effect at Kimmirut. This is being clarified with the HTO. Karen also noted that hunting rules for beluga are still being developed at Pangnirtung as a prerequisite for CBM. She referred to the current draft of the hunting rules in the briefing binder. The remaining item of contention concerns the desire of the HTO to include provision for the use of nets (Rule 8). Karen also pointed out that at the time of the most recent reporting, Pangnirtung has over-harvested its 2001 beluga quota by three animals. It is not clear how the Department should respond. Since the HTO has been working very hard to get its hunting rules in place and to implement CBM (which would render the matter of quota moot) the Department is inclined to be lenient. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that an over-harvest of only three animals would be as close as Pangnirtung hunters have come to staying within their beluga quota in recent years, and should not pose much of a concern.
Karen stated that there has been considerable debate with the Pangnirtung HTO about rules for dealing with stranded or entrapped whales. An action plan has been developed for such eventualities, a copy of which is included in the briefing binder. The first step to be taken with regard to a stranding in a river or in a tidal zone is to see if the whales escape in the course of a succession of high tides. Failing that, and assuming that an existing quota has already been reached, DFO will need to issue a variation order if it is agreed that the whales are to be harvested. There was occasion to implement and test this action plan at Pangnirtung this fall. Three stranded belugas were discovered and placed under observation by the community. They remained stranded for over a month. Following consultation with NWMB staff, a variation order was issued by DFO. Two of the whales were subsequently harvested and one was lost. The HTO provided a very detailed account of the incident, and in doing so demonstrated a high level of responsibility and concern.
Moses Koonoo explained that whales tend to get stranded or entrapped in areas where there is an abundance of food. He suggested that the harvest of such animals should be allowed. Long-term stranding or entrapment, at least in the case of narwhals, makes the maqtaq overly salty and causes the meat to deteriorate rapidly. If polar bears have access to the whales, they will spoil much of the maqtaq. Harvesting should thus be permitted early in the course of such an event.
Gordon suggested that if a beluga or narwhal stranding or entrapment does not involve females with calves, and if any quota that is in existence has not been reached, there would not be any legitimate cause for concern if the animals were harvested. He asked if a special and elaborate administrative procedure was in fact required to deal with such situations. Michael d’E V a stated that hunters would be free to harvest stranded or entrapped whales the same as any others, provided that there was no question of exceeding any total allowable harvest. Michael also pointed out that a variation order to change a quota can only be issued pursuant to an NWMB decision. In accordance with the NLCA, such a decision must go to the Minister for his concurrence and implementation.
Michael suggested that a practical approach to dealing with stranded or entrapped whales might be for the NWMB to make one of more pre-emptive decisions for the consideration of the Minister, especially for communities where this is a common occurrence. Such decisions could spell out what is to be done when such an event happens. The decisions could be put in place ahead of time and still meet the requirements of the NLCA.
Kevin McCormick was enthusiastic about the NWMB developing a policy to guide actions with respect to stranded or entrapped whales. He perceived that such a policy might underpin a set of automatic procedures. He asked if it was mandatory for the DFO Minister to sign variation orders. Burt Hunt replied that he, as Area Manager, is authorised to sign such orders; however he routinely notifies the Minister’s office before signing them and expects to be advised if any problems are foreseen. Whale strandings and entrapments are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so a comprehensive blanket policy might not be practical. On the other hand it might be possible to have in place some blanket procedures for dealing with the routine elements of such situations, with provision to refer any particular circumstances to the NWMB.
Jim Noble stated that DFO Headquarters staff have made the general observation that the large number of NWMB decisions being forwarded to the Minister is a matter of some concern. They would appreciate whatever could be done to make this flow less burdensome. Michelle elaborated that the main point of concern pertains to the creation of small quotas or making small quota adjustments. Okalik Eegeesiak observed that people in the communities are the ones who ultimately suffer the effects of drawn-out bureaucratic processes.
Michael pointed out that Article 5.2.35 of NLCA provides authority for the NWMB to perform “other duties” as agreed by the NWMB and government. This could be an avenue by which the DFO Minister delegated more resource management responsibilities to the NWMB. Even more creative approaches may be possible. Certain resource-management decisions might be re-delegated to the communities. Perhaps protocols could be established whereby communities could make certain decisions following some trigger from the NWMB. Kevin was of the opinion that it would be very attractive for the DFO Minister to delegate more responsibilities to positions in his Department. He noted that the DOE Minister had made such a delegation for matters concerning NIRB. Burt Hunt declared that he was amenable to trying to streamline the process, and cited some steps he had already taken to explore alternative approaches. With respect to dealing with whale entrapments specifically, Burt concurred with the idea of trying to invest more of the decision-making in the communities. This is where the best decision-making capacity lies for a number of matters, for example in respect to the prevention of wastage. However Burt saw a continuing role for some external agency, specifically the NWMB, to contribute what he regarded as “sober second thought”.
The Board requested that Michelle and Karen draft procedures, compatible with the NLCA and for the Board’s consideration, to streamline the interactions of the NWMB with the DFO Minister, and making particular provision for dealing with stranded or entrapped whales.
8.H Community-Based Management System for Narwhal: Update Karen Ditz reminded the Board that this is the last year of the three-year pilot project for community-based management of narwhal. All five communities that were involved in the initial round of consultations on the project are participating this year. Representatives from DFO, NWMB and NTI met with the HTOs in Pond Inlet and Arctic Bay on July 25 and 26 respectively, and in Kugaaruk on August 2, to discuss implementation of the system. Jayko Alooloo represented the QWB at the two north Baffin meetings. Qikiqtarjuaq and Repulse Bay remain to be visited.
At the meetings, DFO staff focussed on ensuring that effective recording and reporting systems were in place. Pond Inlet is demonstrating a lot of leadership in implementing community-based management. Arctic Bay is also making a good effort, and the hunters have instituted an innovative system for distributing tags. However this is the first year for Arctic Bay in the program and the hunters as a group are hampered by some inherent lack of cohesion. The community very much wants to have a three-year trial as per the original participants. All five communities have provided interim reports on their 2001 narwhal hunts.
Gordon Koshinsky asked if the funding that the NWMB provided to Arctic Bay for training is being utilized. Karen replied that the funds were used to conduct one workshop with another workshop planned. A person has also been hired to assist with data collection.
8.I Establishing a TAH for Future Bowhead Whale Hunting
In consideration of the altered Meeting venue having resulted in no community representatives being available at this time to discuss this subject, treatment of the matter was deferred to a later date.
8.J Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program: Update
Lawrence Ignace, Environmental Assessment Specialist for DOE, made a Power Point presentation to the Board regarding the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program (CSSP). A Regional Shellfish Area Classification Committee (RSACC) for Nunavut was established about three months ago, and has met twice already. Lawrence reminded the Members that the NWMB had agreed earlier to interact with the Committee in an observer capacity. Michelle Wheatley has been capably acting on that basis but it is perceived that the NWMB needs to participate as a full and permanent member. It would not matter if the representative was a Board Member or a staff person. Michelle observed that her main input to date has been to explain how the NWMB operates and how it could or would mesh with the CSSP.
Lawrence reiterated that the keystone objective of CSSP is to protect the public from the consumption of contaminated bivalve mollusks. The Program is actually North American in scope, with separately-administered Canadian and American components. The Canadian SSP is jointly administered and operated by:
The National CSSP committee, with representation from the three government agencies, sets the standards for the overall Program. The RSACCs identify survey requirements, review survey results, and recommend area classifications.
Michael d’E V a stressed that the NWMB would be the decision-making authority for closing shellfish growing areas to harvesting in the NSA. DFO could act only pursuant to an NWMB decision. Program materials need to reflect this reality. Karen Ditz acknowledged that DFO would not open or close a shellfish fishery in the absence of an NWMB decision.
Kevin McCormick asked if trading of shellfish within a particular jurisdiction was subject to scrutiny under the CSSP. Lawrence replied that such would be the ideal situation, but in reality the Program focuses on inter-provincial and international trade. Funding for the Program is not particularly generous.
Lawrence noted that the Nunavut communities are currently being catalogued for shellfish stocks and growing conditions. An initial shoreline survey was recently conducted at Qikiqtarjuaq. Trace amounts of paralytic shellfish poisoning have been found in some Nunavut locations. The greater concern at present is the potential for shellfish contamination by human sewage, particularly adjoining the larger communities. The most problematic situation is Koojeessee Inlet at Iqaluit. The Amarok HTO has endorsed closure of Koojeessee Inlet to shellfish harvesting.
Burt Hunt noted that the extensive clam stocks at Qikiqtarjuaq and the aspirations of the community to exploit them have given impetus to the CSSP initiative. The Program seems to be in serious need of adaptation to northern realities. It is obvious that a strong and active NWMB presence on the RSACC would be helpful.
Kevin deemed it best for the NWMB to be represented by a technical staff member, and suggested that Michelle continue in her basic role. Michael noted that the work of the Committee includes making recommendations for NWMB consideration, another reason why it is preferable for the NWMB representative not to be an active Board member.
The Board decided (Resolution 2001- 078) that the NWMB will participate as a full and permanent member of the Regional Shellfish Area Classification Committee for Nunavut as part of the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program, and that the NWMB will be represented on the Committee by the Director of Wildlife Management.
8.K Experimental Beluga Harvest by Makivik in James Bay
Jim Noble advised that notice was received from Johnny Peters on June 21 that three northern Quebec communities proposed to conduct an experimental beluga harvest in James Bay . The aim was to harvest 30 animals in order to:
The proposal was consistent with the current draft management plan for northern Quebec beluga, and had been specifically recommended by DFO scientists. It was not possible to obtain a quorum of NWM Board Members to consider the matter in a reasonable period at that particular time. A few available Members were polled by telephone; no serious concerns were identified, and Makivik was advised over the signature of the NWMB Chairperson that the NWMB concurred with the proposal. It is not known if the hunt took place or if it was successful.
None of the Members expressed concern about the action that was taken. It was recognized that the matter demonstrated a problem that, while infrequent, is of considerable concern to staff. It is not always feasible to obtain an NWMB quorum for urgent decisions that are the purview of the Board. Michael d’E V a urged the Board to develop an appropriate policy for such contingencies. Fortunately the particular matter in question pertained to Zone II, for which NWMB advice must be sought but no NWMB decision is required.
8.L Presentation on Satellite and Radio Telemetry
The formal presentation was deferred, since the scheduled presenter was not available in Iqaluit following the change in venue for the NWMB Meeting. Michelle Wheatley referred the Members to some items of telemetry equipment that were on display at the back of the room.
8.M New Quotas for Aquatic Plants, Kelp and Invertebrates: Kivalliq Region
Michelle Wheatley referred the Board to her briefing note concerning requests that have come forward from three Kivalliq communities, as recommendations via DFO, for certain new harvesting quotas in that Region. These are all small quota requests, pertaining variously to rockweed, dulse, kelp, blue mussels, and Iceland scallops. DFO scientists generally support all the requests, subject to certain sampling and reporting requirements.
Considerable discussion ensued with respect to the following matters:
Following its discussion the Board decided (Resolution 2001 – 079) to establish and allocate certain quotas for rockweed, dulse and kelp, and also for blue mussels and Iceland scallops, for certain communities in the Kivalliq Region as follows:
The Board also decided (as per the same Resolution):
9. Nunavut Wildlife (DSD) Issues and Decisions
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
