 |
| Aerial view: Resolute Marine Laboratory wet lab
on jetty at Resolute Bay (currently not open due to lack of
funding). All photos by H.E. (Buster) Welch |
|
| Aerial view: Resolute Marine Laboratory wet lab
on jetty at Resolute Bay (currently not open due to lack of
funding). All photos by H.E. (Buster) Welch |
Biophysical Characteristics
For the purposes of this paper, Canadian arctic marine waters include the Beaufort Sea eastward from the Yukon/Alaska border, all of the Arctic Archipelago, and Foxe Basin, Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait, and James Bay. These shallow seas are entirely within the Continental Shelf, except for parts of Baffin Bay and the Polar Basin (Arctic Ocean proper). This area includes about 173,000 km of coastline, twice that of the Canadian Pacific and Atlantic regions combined, and over 1 million km2 of continental shelf waters, equivalent to the combined extent of Atlantic and Pacific waters within Canada's 200-mile economic zone. These waters, which are generally as productive as or more productive than the adjacent arctic land surface, provide most of the food for Canadian Inuit. Except for the northwestern portion of the Archipelago and the Polar Basin itself, where multi-year ice exists year round, this is entirely an area of seasonal ice cover. Annual ice reaches 1-2 m thickness by May and is melted or exported almost entirely by September.
Because the ice is covered by a variable quantity of wind-blown snow that both reflects and absorbs solar radiation strongly, and because the sea ice absorbs some of the remaining radiation, on average only one to two percent of solar radiation penetrates to the water before snow melt in early June. Maximum sunlight typically enters the water column in July, after ice breakup, which means that, despite moderately high nutrient levels (inorganic nitrogen, phosphorus, and silica), phytoplankton production is limited to late summer. In shelf waters this phytoplankton bloom fixes 30-100 grams of carbon per square metre (30-100 g C-m2) of water surface (equivalent to 75-250 grams dry biomass); beneath multi-year ice in the Northwest Archipelago and Polar Basin, production is even lower. Ice algae growing on the underside of sea ice in spring addperhaps another 5 g Cm2 to this total. Thus, arctic waters produce only about one quarter of the organic biomass per unit area that is produced annually over the continental shelves of the Canadian east and west coasts.
Major currents include the clockwise gyre in the Beaufort; the flow of polar water southeast through the Archipelago; the West Baffin Current, which carries ice south along the east coast of Baffin Island in summer; the counterclockwise gyre in Hudson Bay; and the opposing eastward and westward tidal currents in Hudson Strait. Locally, the currents may maintain open water areas-so-called polynyas-for much or all of the year. The largest of these, the North Water in north Baffin Bay, is large enough to allow an early and persistent phytoplankton bloom. The North Water is therefore a biological "hotspot," and, like other smaller polynyas, serves as a winter refugium for air-breathing marine mammals and seabirds. Ice edges exist not only at polynyas, but along the floe edge between landfast and drifting ice. As the ice breaks off and recedes in spring, these ice edges become very important feeding and staging grounds for marine mammals and seabirds.
Unlike in the Antarctic, where herbivorous krill (~6 cm long) are a direct link between primary (plant) production and large consumers such as seals and whales, arctic primary production in the Arctic is grazed by relatively small herbivores such as copepods, pteropods, and invertebrate larvae, and thus another trophic level is necessary to link the herbivores and large carnivores. In the central and high Arctic, arctic cod-supplemented by amphipods, particularly the large pelagic Themist~provides this link. In southern Hudson Bay and James Bay, capelin and sand lance replace arctic cod as intermediate carnivores. The importance of arctic cod to the arctic marine food web can scarcely be overstated, and it has been estimated that 148,000 tonnes of these small fish are consumed annually by seabirds and marine mammals in the Lancaster Sound region alone.
Arctic cod, amphipods, and herbivorous copepods are in turn eaten by millions of seabirds concentrated in Jones and Lancaster sounds, on the east coast of Baffin Island, and in Hudson Strait/northern Hudson Bay, where thick-billed murres, northern fulmars, black-legged kittiwakes, black guillemots, gulls, dovekies, and loons feed. The majority of these birds are colonial nesters on island cliffs, requiring special protection from disturbance during the nesting season.
Arctic cod and other prey support several million resident ringed seals throughout the Arctic, along with migratory harp seals, beluga whales and narwhals in the eastern Arctic and beluga whales in the western Arctic. Bowhead whales filter-feed on zooplankton, probably large copepods, chaetognaths, pteropods, and ctenophores. Since bowhead whale stocks were decimated by whalers, the western arctic stock has rebounded somewhat and supports a modest harvest by Alaskan and Canadian aboriginal peoples, whereas the eastern stock is still severely depleted, numbering only a few hundred animals. The central Arctic and the northwestern Archipelago, coinciding roughly with the distribution of permanent pack ice, is devoid of the major migratory seabirds and marine mammals, and the density of ringed seals is also low. Ringed seals are the primary food of polar bears, which, along with humans, occupy a clearly-defined fifth trophic level (Fig. 1). Although Figure 1 is a crude approximation of a very complex real-life food web, the trophic levels of the main predators have been verified by stable isotope analysis and the diagram can be used as a model for marine food webs elsewhere in the Canadian Arctic, although in the western Arctic and Hudson Bay some of the component species, such as fish, may be different.
Total energy flow is divided about evenly between the benthos and zooplankton, in contrast with energy flow in deeper seas, where most primary production is consumed in the water column. Arctic bottom organisms tend to be long-lived (e.g., the clam Mya truncata reaches 55 years of age) and to maintain very high biomass with relatively slow growth. The average composition of the benthos is similar to that in temperate oceans, but with different species. The benthic community supports a variety of small benthic fish (sculpins, zoarcids, blennies, and Greenland cod) in the low Arctic as well as the eastern arctic walrus, which feeds primarily on the bivalves M. truncata and Serripes groenlandicus and benthic-feeding old squaw and eider ducks. Walrus, like bowhead, thus feed low on the food chain, although they occasionally eat ringed seals.
Commercial fishery potentials in true polar Canadian waters are small. Anadromous arctic char derive most of their energy from the sea via amphipods, arctic cod, pteropods, and capelin, but are not important components of marine energy flow. The commercial fishery for arctic char is worth about $1.2 million annually; the domestic char fisheries have an approximate equivalent value. Most of the major char populations are harvested at or above maximum sustainable yield. Anadromous coregonids support subsistence fisheries in Hudson and James bays and in the Beaufort Sea and may have a small commercial potential.
Greenland halibut, commercially called turbot, are found in deep Baffin Bay and Arctic Ocean waters in commercial quantities and support a successful shore-based winter fishery worth $1 million annually out of Pangnirtung, south Baffin Island. Redfish, round-nosed grenadier, and Greenland sharks are also present in Baffin Bay in commercial quantities. Shrimp are found in south Baffin and Hudson Strait waters, and scallops have been found off south Baffin Island and in Hudson Bay, although the commercial potential is probably small. Shallow coastal waters probably have no invertebrate or fish populations capable of sustaining significant long-term fisheries, with the possible exception of the bivalves M. truncata and S. groenlandicus. These clams are present in shallow coastal waters in densities over 100/m2 and can be harvested by hydraulic dredge, although there has been no serious effort to do so. There is a large biomass of kelp in nearshore shallow waters throughout the eastern Arctic, but its commercial potential has not been assessed.
 |
Marine mammals and seabirds are the main biological products of Canadian arctic seas. Seabird populations are generally stable or, in the case of thick-billed murres, declining because of mortality elsewhere in their range (incidental netting, oil fouling, and hunting). Marine mammal populations are generally stable, although population data are not adequate to detect any but the grossest population changes. The annual yield to humans is in the order of 130 beluga in the western Arctic and 300 beluga, 330 narwhal, and 390 walrus in the eastern Arctic. A large harvest of high arctic beluga and narwhal stocks by Greenlanders compounds the management/conservation problem. While there are no current harvest statistics for ringed seal, and populations appear to be stable, production to humans and polar bears is probably near maximum yield. With no large sources of marine production left to exploit, priority must be given to at least maintaining the level of current domestic consumption by the careful husbandry of existing populations.
The long food web in arctic marine systems contrasts with the web in arctic terrestrial systems, where herbivores (caribou, muskox, geese, rabbits, ptarmigan) are taken by humans occupying the third trophic level. The terrestrial system may produce as much or more consumable meat per unit area as does the sea; however, the shorter food chain suggests its primary production per unit area may be lower. The long marine food chain also encourages the biomagnification of pollutants, which are present in surprisingly high concentrations in top marine predators.
The arctic marine system has the following important attributes:
We assume here that a complete, functioning ecosystem includes the higher trophic levels (marine mammals, sea birds, and polar bears). Top predators may have feed-back effects that help the ecosystem to be structured and to function as it does; in addition, top predators are the primary "ecosystem product" of interest to user groups. This is an important point, because most of the threats to arctic waters are directed towards higher trophic levels.
Hydroelectric development
Hudson Bay and James Bay, and possibly Hudson Strait and
the Labrador Sea, have been and will continue to be affected
by hydroelectric developments in Quebec, Ontario, and
Manitoba. There have also been proposals to dam various
headwaters of the Mackenzie River. The primary effect of
damming is a change in flow regime, with an increase in winter
flows and a decrease in summer flows. This in turn may
change ocean currents, near-shore ice conditions, nutrient
availability, the timing and magnitude of ice algal and
phytoplankton production, the first feeding of larval fish, use
of estuaries by marine mammals and anadromous fish, and
patterns of sea and land use by residents and transients along
the coasts. Increased mobilization of mercury is also a
concern. While measurable changes occur to marine ecosystem
structure and function as a result of hydroelectric development,
such changes are probably concentrated near shore. More
subtle offshore biological effects are almost certain, but current
knowledge of the Hudson and James bays ecosystem is so poor
that we can only guess at long-term changes. The Department
of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has held workshops to
hypothesize such effects and has designed a comprehensive
research program to provide information on the structure and
function of the Hudson Bay ecosystem and the results of river
damming on downstream marine ecosystems.
It is probably not possible to put a dollar figure on ecosystem changes resulting from hydroelectric development in Hudson and James bays, partly because there are no commercial marine fisheries, partly because the changes affecting aboriginal lifestyles are difficult to quantify, and partly because the changes themselves have not been described. Once in place, hydroelectric developments are irreversible, although some impacts. such as mercury methylation, may diminish with time.
Long-range transport of pollutants
A second threat to ecosystem integrity is the long-range
transport of pollutants (LRTP) into the Canadian Arctic from
agricultural and industrial activities elsewhere in the Northern
Hemisphere. There are two important groups of LRTP
contaminants: persistent organic pollutants (POP), usually
halogenated compounds with chlorine, bromine, and/or
fluorine; and heavy metals, particularly mercury and cadmium.
These dangerous substances are all difficult to metabolize, so
they bioaccumulate along the food chain, culminating in top
predators such as marine mammals, seabirds, and humans.
Compounds such as DDT and PCB are somewhat volatile and
evaporate from cropland, dump sites, lands, and waters to the
south. They may enter the Arctic via ocean currents (par-
ticularly in Baffin Bay and Hudson Strait), but their main
pathway is atmospheric transport. They preferentially ac-
cumulate by condensation in the cold environment. Persistent
winter air flows from Eurasia over the Pole into the central
Canadian Arctic deposit thousands of tonnes of soil, fly ash
particles, and associated pollutants on sea and land. These
then enter the ocean during melt in June, are concentrated by
ice algae and phytoplankton, and are passed down the food
chain. At each trophic (feeding) level, about 90% of ingested
energy is burned off metabolically, leaving about 10% as
growth; however, POP and mercury are not efficiently ex-
creted, resulting in a very approximate 10-fold concentration
increase at each trophic level. Since arctic marine food chains
are long, contaminants are often concentrated a million fold or
more from water to top predators, at levels high enough to
constitute potential health hazards for the animals and humans
who eat them.
Mercury has always occurred in natural ecosystems and is naturally high in long-lived top predators such as seals, whales, and polar bears; however, global industrialization has mobilized additional mercury, particularly from the burning of coal and municipal wastes. Bottom cores taken in arctic lakes and in Hudson Bay reveal that mercury in sediments has increased about 3-fold in the past 75 years. This is corroborated by the concentration of mercury in the air over the North Atlantic Ocean, which has increased about 1.5% per year from 1977 to 1990, and by the increase of mercury in seabirds in the North Atlantic. Likewise, present-day mercury concentrations in the hair of Greenland humans and seals is 3-4 times higher than it was in the hair of pre-industrial humans and seals. The amount of specialized liver enzymes (metallothioneins and mixed function oxidases) correlates with concentrations of mercury and POP in marine mammals, but we have no knowledge of what the physiological and behavioral effects of this probable increase in mercury concentration in top marine predators might be. We can surmise that continued increases will place predators at risk (Weiner and Spry 1994). Unlike humans, bears and seals cannot switch to an alternative food source. Sublethal effects of pollutants on arctic aquatic predators need research.
Thus LRTP contaminants, via effects on top predators, may pose the most important threat to arctic marine ecosystem integrity. The economic and cultural costs of the loss of, say, polar bear are virtually incalculable. The difficulties of "clean up" are enormous, since it would require scrubbers to remove mercury from combustion products and global action to reduce or eliminate the use of POP. We can regulate our own country, but it will be much more difficult to convince, for example, India that it should no longer use DDT.
Climate change
There is general agreement that the effects of climate change
will occur most strongly at high latitudes, with increases in
winter temperature and snowfall and probable reductions in
the extent and thickness of sea ice. These physical effects will
result in a gradual transformation of arctic into subarctic, with
a general northward movement of ice edges and other
boundaries. At the very least, there will be a shift in animal
populations, although it is not possible to predict an entirely
negative impact of climate warming on arctic marine waters;
overall productivity might increase and some stocks of marine
mammals and seabirds may flourish. At present we can only
flag climate change as a concern for arctic seas, recognizing
that little will probably be done to reverse the release of carbon
dioxide and other compounds that increase the greenhouse
effect.
Over-hunting
The harvest of marine mammals and birds is perhaps the most
immediate and obvious threat to ecosystem integrity. Historic
losses and reductions, mostly from commercial hunting,
include the almost total extirpation of eastern arctic bowhead
whales, the severe reduction of western arctic bowheads, the
loss of Ungava Bay beluga, and the reduction of walrus stocks.
Current low populations of beluga in eastern Hudson Bay and
southern Baffin Island are a result, at least in part, of
overhunting by aboriginal peoples.
Until the Inuvialuit and Nunavut land-claims settlements, marine mammal management was a responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). Now comanagement mechanisms are in place and there are high expectations that stocks endangered by over-hunting will receive the protection they need to ensure conservation. Should over-hunting continue, however, there is a high probability that some whale stocks will be either eliminated or taken to such low levels that they will no longer be effective components of the ecosystem.
The implication of over-hunting is both economic and cultural, since aboriginal people depend upon marine mammals as a major source of food and as a mechanism for cultural inheritance. Control of over-hunting is relatively simple and straightforward compared with controlling other ecosystem threats such as LRTP pollutants and hydroelectric development. Ineffective management may cost the existence of the stock(s) in question, because once a stock decreases below a certain threshold it may not be able to recover readily. An example of slow recovery is the eastern arctic bowhead stock, which, despite 75 years of protection, still numbers only a few hundred animals.
Non-renewable resource extraction
Non-renewable resource extraction poses relatively minor
threats to specific geographic areas, for example, the Polaris
and Nanisivik base metal mines and the Bent Horn oil field in
the high Arctic. Oil and gas exploration, especially in the
Beaufort Sea, has been a source of hydrocarbon
contamination, primarily from drilling muds and to a lesser extent from
chronic fuel spills. The potential for catastrophic oil spills
from wells, tankers, and pipelines will be greater during the
production phase, thought not to be likely for perhaps two
decades. While we can be confident that stringent regulations
governing production will be set in place, oil spills around the
world show that some contamination is inevitable and massive
disasters not unlikely. Massive oil spills threaten arctic marine
ecosystem integrity primarily through effects on mammals,
birds, and possibly coastal stocks of migratory fish.
Depending upon location and time of year of a major oil spill, the
damage could range from moderate to extremely severe.
There was a proposal to remove natural gas from the Sverdrup Basin (high arctic islands) eastward through the Northwest Passage, using two bulk liquified natural gas carriers that would transit the Passage 60 times per year. This activity would have negative impacts on the bird and mammal concentrations of Barrow Strait-Lancaster Sound and is unlikely to be approved. There has been no environmental assessment of a proposal to develop a port east of Coppermine for shipping base metal concentrate from Izok Lake to markets eastward, which would also result in heavy ship traffic through the eastern Northwest Passage, including through summer beluga whale concentrations in Peel Sound.
Other threats
Ozone depletion over the poles has resulted in increased
ultraviolet radiation (UV) flux. The current consensus is that
there may be minor damage to phytoplankton at high latitudes
but probably not enough to affect ecosystem integrity.
Likewise, radionuclide contamination, particularly from
Russia, has received a lot of press, but indications are that
increased radiation levels are currently undetectable even
close to sunken reactors and are unlikely to pose an immediate
threat to marine ecosystem integrity in the Canadian Arctic
We can distinguish four classes of stakeholder in arctic marine systems. First, there are consumer groups who harvest the products of the system in some way, e.g., Inuit hunters. Second, there are non-consumptive groups who nevertheless depend on the integrity of arctic marine ecosystems, e.g., tourists. Third, there are groups that do not depend on the integrity or the products of the system, but are nonetheless dependent on regulation in so far as it may affect their activities, e.g., the shipping industry. Fourth, there are advisory and management groups that may have considerable influence on policy development but are not themselves users of the resource (e.g., the Canadian Polar Commission).
Class 1: Consumer groups dependent upon ecosystem integrity.
Foremost are aboriginal people and, to a much
lesser extent, non-aboriginals who depend upon marine
products for domestic and commercial use. Most Inuit are
maritime people-Baker Lake is the only Inuit settlement not
located on the sea-directly dependent on marine products for
subsistence and economic development. It is difficult to
overstate the importance of the sea to a people whose main
traditional belief centres on a mythical half-woman, half-sea
mammal creature that lived on the sea bottom and controlled
the seals, whales, and walrus used by humans above.
Aboriginal user groups are represented at several levels of organization. Internationally, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) represents all arctic aboriginals from Canada, United States, Russia, and Greenland, and is a powerful voice for arctic peoples as a whole. Regionally in the Canadian Arctic, marine consumer groups fall almost entirely under one of three land-claims agreements: the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and the James Bay-Northern Quebec Agreement. A Makivik offshore claim for Hudson Bay is also currently being negotiated by Makivik and the federal government. Co-management boards established under these agreements integrate regional Inuit organizations and community-based Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTOs). Beneficiaries of land-claims agreements have first priority for both domestic and commercial resource use.
 |
| Walrus near Resolute. |
An existing Economic Development Agreement (EDA) between the federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) provides funding for exploratory marine fisheries, but not in the context of a long-term land-use and sustainable fisheries plan. Economic considerations have prompted development of the Keewatin char fishery in the absence of initial comprehensive stock assessments, leading to probable over-capitalization and possible stock depletion.
Class 2: Non-consumers dependent upon ecosystem integrity.
All Canadians and the world population at large have
a stake in the continued integrity of the arctic marine
ecosystem, simply because "it's there" and because the "products"
are the lure and stimulus of top predators. Ecotourism is a
manifestation of this demand.
This national and international concern is focused through the various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that serve as watchdogs over arctic affairs. Probably the best known and most effective within Canada is the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee (CARC). The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the ICC are important players on the international arctic conservation scene. NGOs are generally sympathetic to aboriginal people and have emphasized the importance of traditional knowledge and the aboriginal holistic world view to the process of protection for arctic marine resources.
Ecotourism is potentially the largest economic engine based upon renewable resources in the Canadian Arctic, although I am not aware of any representative associations (GNWT's Dept. of Economic Development and Tourism is a contact point). Heritage Canada (previously Parks Canada) is another government agency with a large stake in arctic marine ecosystem integrity.
The world scientific community is also a stakeholder. The biophysical extremes exhibited by polar systems are important "anchor points" and test sites for many scientific theories and relationships; arctic data are important inputs in general circulation models to predict climate change; and glaciers, rocks, and ruins hold secrets of history. Even though much arctic science does not directly benefit northerners, the international science community needs access to the Canadian Arctic.
Class 3: Non-consumptive groups not dependent upon
ecosystem integrity.
The non-consumptive groups include
the federal departments of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan,
previously Energy, Mines & Resources), Canadian Coast
Guard (CCG, now part of Fisheries and Oceans), and Defence.
Regulations and conservation measures established to protect
the arctic marine ecosystem constrain the activities regulated
by these departments, including shipping and the extraction of
non-renewable resources.
Industrial organizations include the petroleum industry (Arctic Petroleum Operators' Association), Cominco Ltd. (Polaris Mine), and Nanisivik Mines Ltd. There are also potential mining ventures, such as the Kiggavik uranium mine near Baker Lake and the Izok Lake base metals mine, that would have an impact via shipping.
Class 4: Advisory and regulatory groups.
Class 4 includes
all federal departments with regulations controlling various
aspects of arctic marine activities. Within and between these
departments are organizational units and advisory groups.
There are also non-departmental advisory organizations at the
national and international levels, such as the Canadian Polar
Commission and the International Arctic Science Committee.
A brief listing of federal departments and their primary
responsibilities for regulation of arctic marine affairs follows.
The Inuvialuit Final Agreement was the most comprehensive land-claims settlement in Canada when it was signed in 1984. Its provisions for land-use planning, environmental review processes, and wildlife and fisheries management included the establishment of an Environmental Impact Screening Committee to assess the impacts of any development. If the committee considers any impacts to be serious, it refers the matter to the Environmental Impact Review Board, which advises the appropriate government agency whether the project should go ahead. The agency then decides if the project can proceed and under what conditions, if any. The government may also initiate an EARP. Both the screening comrnittee and the review board are composed of equal numbers of Inuvialuit and government appointees and a government-appointed chairman with a tie-breaking vote.
For the management of fisheries, including marine mammals, the agreement establishes the Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC), with two Inuvialuit and two government members and a tie-breaking chairman selected by the committee itself. The FJMC advises the minister of Fisheries and Oceans as to quotas, regulations, and research and allocates subsistence quotas among communities. The minister can accept or reject the recommendations, with provision for further consultation with the FJMC. At the community level, Hunters and Trappers Committees (HTC) suballocate quotas, set local by-laws, and serve as the liaison between the community and the FJMC. Prefacing all the legislation for fish and game management is a statement pledging conservation of stocks: 14 (1): "A basic goal of the Inuvialuit Land Rights Settlement is to protect and preserve the Arctic wildlife, environment and biological productivity through the application of conservation principles and practices." Thus, although management board decisions can be overridden by the minister on the basis of stock conservation, the boards are true co-management structures and are the legal authority over fish, game, and habitat.
The Inuvialuit Final Agreement also states that Inuvialuit are to have equal representation on any land-use planning boards that might be established, although no such planning boards were explicitly specified in the agreement.
The Nunavut Final Agreement (1993) for the central and eastern Arctic, exclusive of Quebec, is more comprehensive and specific than the Inuvialuit Final Agreement in its provisions for aboriginal control over marine habitat and stocks. It specifically provides for land-use planning by establishing the Nunavut Planning Commission, composed equally of government and Inuit representatives, and contains strong statements that habitat and wildlife will be managed according to the principles of conservation. Government retains the ultimate responsibility for wildlife conservation; however, beneficiaries have the right to take marine products up to the limit of their basic needs level (first priority), including intersettlement trade. Resident non-beneficiaries have next priority, then existing economic ventures, then beneficiaries have first refusal for the usage of further allowable catch. Inuit have preference in the development of economic structures based on harvesting, tourism, parks, and other marine products and the right of free access and harvesting up to the total allowable harvest for each stock in any national park, park reserve, and conservation area that may be set up, unless they decide voluntarily to limit their access or take.
Management of wildlife (including fish, sea birds, and marine mammals) is the responsibility of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB), composed of one member appointed by the GNWT, three members appointed by the federal government, four members from designated Inuit organizations, and a tie-breaking chairman selected by the NWMB itself. Thus the NWMB is a powerful body with a mandate to control all aspects of marine harvesting and conservation in the Nunavut Settlement Area. The minister of Fisheries and Oceans can interfere with this right only if it is demonstrated that NWMB actions threaten the conservation of stocks. The agreement further states that the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Water Board, the Nunavut Planning Commission, and the NWMB may jointly form a Marine Council, an advisory body only.
The NWMB effectively brings four levels of government together under one umbrella. Representing the GNWT, the federal government, and designated Inuit organizations, it is likely to delegate part of its responsibilities to regional wildlife organizations and community-based Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTOs), which will have considerable input into decisions related to harvesting, catch allocation, economic development based on marine resources, and marine research programs. Procedures and practices are still evolving but an example of the exercise of local control occurred in Resolute in April 1994, when the Resolute HTO requested a ban on scientific research activities in an area heavily used by ringed seals. Although the NWMB did not approve the request (the expected routing would be HTO -NWMB, then NWMB would make the request), research activities were immediately adjusted to meet local concerns. One hopes that the NWMB will not delegate too much power to HTOs, because many decisions require a more global viewpoint than is likely at the community level.
If the FJMC experience is any indication, the NWMB should evolve into a responsible mechanism for the wise use of marine resources. There is the inevitable learning curve, while aboriginal and non-aboriginal members develop trust in each others' motives and decisions, and this learning experience will help shape the way the board eventually works. Government must recognize that Inuit will act in their own best interest by conserving stocks at levels at least high enough to provide maximum sustainable yield; Inuit must realize that it is no longer a "them-us" dichotomy and that government efforts to conserve stocks represent the best policy in the long run. Such trust will preclude issues like the southeast Baffin beluga controversy, where DFO wanted a greatly reduced kill because it believed the stock to be depleted and the Inuit thought that scientific advice was just an obstacle to restrict their hunting. Both DFO and Inuit are now working together on the Southeast Baffin Beluga Committee to resolve the issue.
A parallel situation exists for some fish stocks, notably the arctic char run in the Sylvia Grinnell River at Iqaluit. Historically depleted by overfishing, this stock is being exhausted by the netting of small fish before they reach the size at which total biomass production is maximized. The run itself is in no danger of extinction since there is sufficient spawning escapement and smolt (juvenile) production, but continued disagreement between users and regulators keeps actual production well below its potential.
The Nunavut Agreement gives beneficiaries the right of free access and hunting, within the limits of stock conservation, on all land and territorial waters regardless of any other status, which means that parks and conservation areas are accessible to Inuit for harvest purposes, whereas they may be off-limits to non-Inuit. Indeed, Inuit see conservation areas as a mechanism for the protection of stocks from industrial and other influences, in effect creating large game preserves where production is maximal. This is part of the reasoning behind the proposed Isabella Bay bowhead sanctuary.
Despite the enormity of Canadian arctic seas, the amount of scientific work performed there has been only a tiny fraction of that performed off the east and west coasts (see Fraser 1994). Most has been done on seabirds, marine mammals, stock assessments, and contaminants; very little research has been aimed at basic understanding of marine ecosystem structure and function. As a result, we remain largely ignorant of production mechanisms, food webs and rates of energy transfer, and the physical regimes that ultimately control these processes.
The reasons for this dearth of basic research are easy to find. First and foremost, there are no permanent facilities in the Arctic that provide ship and wet lab support, both absolutely essential for most kinds of basic marine biology. The absence of such facilities immediately eliminates university scientists, who lack the large-scale funding that would enable them to mount their own independent programs. Second, DFO, which has the mandate to conduct basic marine research, has not had an identifiable arctic marine research program (ARA 1991). Marine research in the Arctic has been heavily dependent upon B-base special project funding through programs such as the Northern Oil and Gas Activity Program (NOGAP), the Panel on Energy Development (PERD), the Environmental Studies Revolving Fund (ESRF), Green Plan, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and land-claims agreements and has been oriented to specific issues such as stock assessments and contaminants. The "ecosystem" is never an issue, so research on it is poorly funded. This is particularly critical in the Arctic, where there are not decades of baseline data upon which to make decisions. "With most applied work it is like trying to build a house of cards on a wooden table; in the Arctic, there is not even a table" (G.B. Ayles, pers. comm., 1994).
The result of this imbalance of research efforts between the coasts is nowhere more apparent than in our lack of understanding of the Hudson Bay system and the potential cumulative effects of upstream hydroelectric development. Likewise, contaminants are an issue in the Arctic and, while Green Plan money is supporting a modest research program on contaminants levels in ecosystem components, the corresponding research on ecosystem structure and the effects of contaminants on non-human components, both necessary for interpretation of contaminant concentrations, is conspicuously absent.
The lack of basic ecosystem knowledge has become obvious during the process of establishing marine parks in the Arctic. Fairly specific knowledge of bird and marine mammal habitat exists, but there are so few data on ecosystems that selection of representative or valuable areas in some marine regions is no more precise than throwing darts at the map.
The importance of scientific knowledge to arctic marine conservation is explicitly stated in the DFO Arctic Marine Conservation Strategy, which lists science as the first of six implementation strategies. The reason is obvious: if the structure and function of a marine system are unknown, it is probably not possible to protect it from human-induced changes.
It is within the co-management regimes that traditional knowledge comes into play in the decision-making process. Aboriginal users of natural resources have built up a great storehouse of knowledge about their prey and the ecosystems that produce those prey. Aboriginal peoples have also developed a belief system that is still with them today -- the theme of which is the holistic nature of ecosystems: All creatures and the earth are interrelated, such that interference with one may have unpredictable effects elsewhere in the system. I have heard Cree from Hudson Bay state that the damming of rivers will have dire effects, even though aboriginal people and western scientists alike do not know what all the effects might be. In a similar vein, Inuit object to ranking the importance of species both to ecosystems and to themselves, stating that all species might at one time be valuable as food and that all species have a function within the system, even if that function is unknown. Thus aboriginal people are Canada's original ecosystem ecologists. Their belief in the interrelatedness of things is accompanied by their respect for the creatures that must be killed so that humans might live. Hunting and fishing for sport is not always understandable and, even today, aboriginal people raised on the land do not appreciate catch-and-release fish conservation practices. Don't toy with your food -- if you catch it, you use it.
Until land-claims agreements installed meaningful co-management structures, traditional knowledge had little chance for expression in government policy. Now that aboriginal people have equal representation on management boards, traditional knowledge and beliefs are incorporated into management decisions, as described by Bell (1994) for the FJMC. We can assume that the NWMB will also incorporate traditional knowledge into its decisions. Since the overriding concern of northern aboriginals is the sustainability of resource harvesting, it is likely that co-management boards, including those for land-use planning, will incorporate a strong conservation and ecosystem integrity ethic into decisions. We can hope that the tools of western science will be combined with the knowledge and belief systems of Inuvialuit and Inuit to produce a strong amalgam of protective armour over northern marine ecosystems. As Bell (1994) puts it, "The magic of co-management is not that it brings aboriginal people to the science table, but rather that it makes science available to aboriginal people so that they can use it as a tool along with their indigenous knowledge...to make decisions consistent with their underlying philosophy of wise use."
A notable exception to the general lack of application of traditional knowledge to ecosystem problems is the Hudson Bay Programme (HBP), sponsored by CARC, the municipality of Sanikiluaq, and the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Sciences (of which CARC members will be aware). Using a combination of western science and traditional knowledge, the HBP seeks to assess cumulative impacts on the Hudson Bay bioregion. It sought input from elders and hunters from aboriginal communities encircling the bay, spearheaded by leaders from Sanikiluaq. This traditional ecological knowledge and management systems information was then compared and combined with a compilation of scientific data in a workshop in May 1994. Undoubtedly the largest formal compilation of traditional knowledge ever made outside the field of anthropology, it holds a wealth of information about Hudson Bay and the belief systems of the aboriginal people that depend upon the bay for subsistence and will become a guide for future interactive studies using traditional knowledge.
There is an array of legislation designed in whole or in part to protect arctic marine ecosystems. Federal acts include the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Provincial-type statutes include the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act and the Northwest Territories Act. Relevant territorial ordinances include the Environmental Protection Ordinance, the Parks Ordinance, and the Wildlife Ordinance. It is obvious from reading the existing legislation that there are both duplications and gaps regarding the protection of arctic marine waters. An Oceans Act might serve as umbrella legislation, cover the gaps in existing regulations, and specify lead agencies with responsibilities for arctic marine protection. An important federal policy directive is the EARP. Another initiative to protect the arctic system is the Canadian Coast Guard effort to develop Arctic Environmental Sailing Directions that will assist shipping to reduce impacts on birds, mammals, and the environment.
The DFO is the logical agency to spearhead protection of the arctic ocean ecosystem, since it is already responsible for all stocks except polar bears, as well as for marine fish habitat, and has the mandate over oceans. One objective of current negotiations between DFO and DOE to clarify roles vis-a-vis fresh and marine waters is to strengthen the prime responsibility for all aspects of ocean management within DFO. DFO's procedure for protection of the marine ecosystem usually begins with management plans for individual stocks, the first step being stock assessment, followed by a fishing plan specifying total allowable catch. DFO has been working at these plans and presenting results to the joint management boards, which have not been able to conduct the research themselves. Plans for marine mammal stocks include the Canada / U.S. beluga plan; the Beaufort Sea beluga management plan; the Southeast Baffin beluga plan; the Eastern Hudson Bay beluga plan; and the western Arctic bowhead plan, which was precipitated in part by the political need to have some sort of management plan in place before taking bowheads in the Beaufort Sea.
 |
| Research vessel Ogac. The 25-tonnne, 43-foot vessel, operated out of Resolute Bay between 1988 and 1990, has been dry-docked at Nanisivik for the past four years due to lack of funding. |
The 1984 Task Force Report on Northern Conservation "placed responsibility for developing Arctic marine environmental conservation policies at the feet of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by recommending that the Department assume its legitimate responsibilities as the lead agency for Arctic Marine Conservation." In response, DFO published the Canadian Arctic Marine Conservation Strategy discussion paper in 1987, calling for a series of action plans based upon six implementation strategies.
The first strategy, science, requests science to provide biological advice to DFO managers on arctic fish and marine mammals stocks. Unfortunately, additional internal funding for arctic marine science was not forthcoming, which has resulted in issue-specific research funded by B-base sources, without a corresponding level of support for research on ecosystems.
The second strategy is shared management, which has come to pass with the land-claims settlements. DFO has been a willing and effective partner in the co-management process.
The third strategy is integrated resource planning and management. There have been some land-use planning initiatives (Lancaster Sound region, Mackenzie delta-Beaufort Sea region, the west Kitikmeot region, the Keewatin region), although there is a long way to go before reasonably complete integrated resources planning is established. The strategy also called for streamlining EARP guidelines, which has occurred with the proclamation of the CEAA.
The fourth strategy is protection of marine environmental quality. Hydroelectric impacts are mentioned specifically, but DFO itself has recognized that existing data for Hudson Bay are inadequate to assess impacts and has developed plans for a multi-disciplinary study of the Hudson Bay system. This strategy includes the establishment of a system of marine protected areas in the Arctic, on which some progress has been made by Heritage Canada.
The fifth strategy, public knowledge, calls for education of Inuit and the general public regarding the arctic marine system. Again, no new money was forthcoming to implement this strategy. It also advocated training northerners for responsible positions. There has been some progress on this matter, although Inuit technical staff have also been lost to attrition.
The sixth strategy, international considerations, is a mixed bag. On one hand, the department is participating in bilateral talks with the United States and Greenland on shared stocks but, on the other hand, individual scientists are hindered by a lack of funds and by a travel policy that discourages participation in international conferences and research efforts.
Finally, the conservation strategy calls for a steering committee and an annual audit of progress; this has not happened.
In summary, DFO developed an excellent Arctic Marine Conservation Strategy, but government departments, particularly DFO, were unable to follow through on many of the components because resources for implementation dried up as industrial activity in the Arctic decreased and the federal government reduced spending.
Currently there is no marine protected area in the Canadian Arctic, aside from small areas around bird refuges such as Prince Leopold Island and Coburg Island, which protect only bird life (aboriginal hunters may carry on subsistence hunting there).
The Canadian Parks Service (now part of Heritage Canada) established a National Marine Parks Policy in 1986, in response to the Brundtland Commission' s call for 12% of land surface to be set aside as parks and an unspecified area of marine ecosystems to be set aside as parks or reserves. Article 194 of the Law of the Sea Treaty also imposes obligations on signatory states to protect marine ecosystems, and the Montreal Guidelines on Land-based Pollution require states to take appropriate measures to establish marine reserves to protect certain areas from harm. The Parks Service divided arctic marine waters into 10 regions, each with similar biology and oceanography as far as is known. Of these 10 regions, only the Northern Arctic (Arctic 3), by virtue of its inclusion in the Ellesmere Island National Park Reserve, has an identified area ready to be set aside.
One notable accomplishment in the designation of protected areas has been the proposed Igalirtuuq conservation area at Isabella Bay, 100 km south of Clyde River on east Baffin Island. Isabella Bay was originally brought to the attention of the federal government by the residents of Clyde River, who described concentrations of bowhead using the bay each fall. After a decade of research and consultation, the federal government' s Green Plan provided funds for workshops in Iqaluit and Clyde River, where a plan was developed for the conservation area. The plan was then approved by the people of Clyde River and the Baffin Region Hunters and Trappers Committee; the NWMB approved the boundaries. The objective of the plan is to protect and conserve bowhead stocks by setting aside Isabella Bay as a national wildlife area and possibly as a biosphere reserve under the Man and Biosphere Programme. While not perfect for the purpose intended, the designation as a national wildlife area under the Wildlife Act (administered by DOE) was seen as the best way to protect Isabella Bay from outside developments. Designation as a biosphere reserve carries considerable moral, but no legal, weight.
The Isabella Bay experience is instructive on several counts. First, it was based on sound biological data that documented the importance of the bay to bowheads, an endangered species in the eastern Arctic. Second, it involved local people right from the outset, and local people were eager to protect the bowheads. Third, it received support from the various government agencies involved because it was a real conservation issue. Fourth, an existing legislative mechanism, although not perfect, served to protect the area.
If we apply the lessons of the Igalirtuuq experience to current efforts by Heritage Canada to establish national marine parks in the Arctic, we find that there is little biological data for most of the marine areas. Without good data specifying the critical importance of a given marine area, other stakeholders may see little reason for setting it aside. Local residents must also see the value (for them as well as for stock and habitat preservation) if they are to support the establishment of a marine reserve. While there are good reasons to set aside representative marine areas for preservation, there are also valid reasons not to set aside such areas unless they are shown to be in genuine need of protection.
In an area the size of the Canadian Arctic, designating several areas as being important to protect may not be a good approach, because the great diversity of habitat and stocks means that many places are important to various species and processes and because many species are migratory. Certainly the Lancaster Sound region ranks high on any list of critical marine areas, by virtue of its polynyas and ice edges, high density of resident seals and polar bear, seasonal bird and mammal migrants, and high biological production. But the area used by these species is vast, over 100,000 km2 of sea surface, and it is unlikely that a marine park encompassing the entire area could be established. And what about other arctic "hotspots" such as Hudson Strait, the Mackenzie delta, Cape Bathurst polynya, the Belcher Islands, and Foxe Basin?
Dividing the Arctic into 10 regions is a step towards recognizing and protecting the diversity of marine habitats. An alternative approach would be to develop and periodically update comprehensive land- and marine-use plans. Provision could be made for setting aside critical habitat, much as is being done for Isabella Bay. This might be more flexible and adaptive than arbitrarily setting aside a"representative" marine area, only to discover subsequently that other habitats and stocks also need special protection. In any reserve system, boundaries should follow ecosystem and oceanographic lines rather than political ones.
Coastal zone management is generally a lesser problem in arctic waters than it is on the east and west coasts, because coastal industrial and municipal development is relatively minor and existing legislation can be used to control its effects.
However, the lack of a coastal zone management scheme for Hudson and James bays is apparent. There, upstream development of hydroelectric power in particular has resulted in increased mercury flux to downstream areas and altered freshwater flows (including major diversions) to estuaries and coastal regions. Indeed, Manitoba Hydro's diversion of the Churchill River, which began in 1976, was not preceded by a study of the Churchill and Nelson river estuaries, which are known to harbour concentrations of anadromous fish and beluga whale. Only now are the downstream effects of proposed further damming on the Quebec shore being questioned, and Hydro Quebec has been informed that it must consider effects on coastal zone marine systems as part of its environmental impact statement. This is still a long way from effective coastal zone management.
DFO's approach to coastal zone management has been to develop and implement a classification scheme for all arctic waters based upon three priorities. The first priority is the conservation and management of fish and marine mammal resources and their habitats. The second is the sustained use of marine resources by northerners, followed by other users where appropriate, and the third is to ensure that other activities such as mining proceed with minimal effect on fisheries and habitats. These three priorities are consistent with DFO' s Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (DFO 1986), which states the overriding principle of no net loss of habitat.
The policy's classification scheme ranks all arctic waters under four designations, from one (greatest importance, maximum protection) to four (limited importance, basic protection). This classification was used in planning exercises by the Northern Land Use Planning Commission, a joint initiative of DIAND and GNWT. Present and future land-use planning exercises will occur under the various land-claims settlement mandates, and DFO will continue to apply its classification scheme to marine areas for the purpose of coastal zone management, land-use planning, and protection of marine resources. Whether this is sufficient to protect marine areas from upstream, onshore development -- particularly hydroelectric dams -- remains to be seen.
We can conclude that some sort of coastal zone management plan is necessary even for arctic waters. It will not eliminate all the threats to the arctic marine ecosystem, notably those originating from beyond Canada's borders, but it will prepare for further hydroelectric development, mining, road-building, port development, and shipping.
So far, Canada's actions for arctic marine conservation have largely been reactive instead of proactive. The transit of the Northwest Passage by the Exxon tanker Manhattan in 1969 touched off a flurry of activity that culminated in the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, promulgated in part to control foreign shipping in arctic waters. The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) resulted in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although Canada has refused to ratify the convention because of the seabed mining article, it was a major designer of the convention and, as a result, has declared a 200-mile exclusive economic zone as well as a 12-mile territorial sea, thereby taking national jurisdiction over most of the Canadian continental margin.
UNCLOS III carried certain obligations to control pollution from shelf activities that must be no less effective than existing international rules based on the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines. Articles 192-212 of UNCLOS III spell out various actions that member countries are obligated to take for the preservation of the marine environment. The 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) strengthened international pressure on coastal states to conserve biodiversity and to preserve marine habitats. Specific events such as the Arrow oil spill in Chedabucto Bay, the loss of the Ocean Ranger, and the 1985 transit through the Northwest Passage of the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea have imparted a sense of urgency and specificity to calls for pollution control, safety standards, sovereignty over arctic waters, and marine conservation.
In the case of long-range transport of pollutants and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) depletion of the ozone layer, Canada has been a leader, being the first country to ratify the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and hosting the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Canada's recent policy documents (Ocean Policy, Marine Parks Policy, Fish Habitat Policy, Arctic Marine Conservation Strategy) indicate that it is trying to put in place proactive preventive measures to preserve our ocean habitats. How much progress will be made remains to be seen.
A recent international development gaining momentum is the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), the result of an eight-nation ministerial-level agreement in Rovaniemi, Finland, in 1991. The first program to be set up under AEPS was the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), which is documenting the distribution of chronic pollution in arctic waters. The second program was the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), which includes aspects of habitat conservation and indigenous knowledge. The third program, just now getting under way, is the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME). Finally, the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) working group has been established.
The AEPS program has virtually no money in Canada. Existing funding avenues (e.g., Green Plan, scheduled to end in 1997 and significantly cut since its inception) are being used to fund research and monitoring that more or less fit into AEPS programs like AMAP. Without specific funding, the AEPS agreement may have limited effect on Canada's research programs, although PAME increases pressure for Canada to establish marine conservation areas. AEPS thus brings to bear considerable moral and political pressure for Canada to document and respond to threats to arctic waters. Since AEPS programs are still evolving, it is difficult to predict their results.
The Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), representing the concerns of all arctic aboriginal people, has developed its own science and technology policy, expressed in the paper "Principles and Elements for a Comprehensive Arctic Policy." ICC calls for a holistic approach to sustainable development in the Arctic that recognizes the rights of indigenous people and that, among other things, requires that development be based on the principle of conservation of marine systems. ICC has observer status within the AEPS and contributes strongly to this and other arctic marine conservation policy developments.
The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), sponsored by the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), is another international influence on Canadian events. The Royal Society of Canada has been the chief agent for MBP in Canada. Under IGBP, the Land-Ocean Interaction Zone has considerable relevance to arctic marine conservation; it aims to compare a number of coastal zone systems with regard to pollution load, carbon flux, and other parameters, and IGBP is urging Canada to work at an arctic marine location, probably either the Beaufort or Hudson Bay.
International forces such as IGBP/LOICZ and AEPS/PAME/CAFF are collectively strong influences on the direction of Canada's arctic marine research and conservation efforts, particularly since DFO has no overall plan of action. This means that Canada's arctic marine research efforts may be dictated by outside forces in a manner that rnay not result in the program that best suits Canada's needs.
There are unique biophysical attributes of arctic marine systems that require special conservation consideration. These include long food chains, specific prey needs, landfast and pack ice, polynyas and ice edges, areas of mammal and bird concentrations, long-lived species, and slow rebound from population reductions. The western scientific knowledge base is incomplete for fisheries stocks and extremely inadequate for ecosystems. The traditional knowledge base could be used to narrow the gap, but it has not been extensively tapped. Legislation and policy directives aimed at arctic marine ecosystem conservation have been largely reactive to specific events, and international developments are having considerable influence on arctic marine conservation. Existing legislation is confusing and scattered and might benefit from amalgamation into a single cohesive directive. Actual conservation efforts have been piecemeal and sector based, rather than comprehensive management plans that encompass economic development, ecosystems, and social institutions. Efforts have been made to establish a series of marine parks but progress has been slow. Aboriginal land-claims settlements have legislated a variety of co-management boards that are just now coming into their own and that are evolving into powerful forces for marine conservation and protection. These management boards could be used as simple models for the east and west coasts, where the diversity of interests and stocks makes a coherent conservation policy very difficult to achieve.
ARA Consultants, 1991. Final Report, Evaluation of the Arctic Science Program, prepared for the Internal Audit and Evaluation Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 104 pp.
Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. 1991. Declaration. Rovaniemi, Finland
Arctic Environmental Protection Stategy. 1993. The Nuuk Declaration on Environment and Development in the Arctic. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Copenhagen.
Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, Working group on the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME), Report from the first meeting, Oslo, Norway, 3-5 May 1994.
Ayles, G.B., personal communication, 1994.
Bell, R.K. 1994. Indigenous knowledge, sustainable development and co-operative management (the FJMC experience). To be given as a paper, 1994. 15 pp.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1986. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat. Government of Canada, Ottawa. 28 pp.
Fraser, L. 1994. "The imbalance of marine science in Canada" Northern Perspectives 22(1): 14-15.
Weiner, J.G., and D.J. Spry. In press. Toxicological significance of mercury
in freshwater fish. In Heinz, G., and N. Beyer (eds.) Interpreting
Concentrations of Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife Tissues.
Lewis, Chelsea, Michigan.
