The flux of trust: caribou co-management in Northern Canada.

While elders, hunters and biologists may come to similar conclusions about what they observe on the barren ground caribou ranges, elders worry about how and where resource management policies are made. Caribou co-management efforts have recently started looking toward community-based monitoring as a means to actively include the knowledge of elders and active hunters in management decision-making.

Key to Fundamental Cross-Cultural Exchange: Community-Based Caribou Monitoring

Much is gained by the wide view of the aerial camera

but something is lost,

matters which are important to those that dwell there

(Blanchet 1949: 9).

There is very little understanding of temporal and geographical fluctuations in barren ground caribou sub-populations. Little documentation of aboriginal communities' knowledge of long-term range use and movement patterns has occurred (exceptions include Thorpe and Kadlun 2000, Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation 2001, Whaehdoo Naowoo Ko (Dogrib Treaty 11 Council) 2001). There are signs that caribou movements and distribution are becoming increasingly variable. This means that decision-making about the capacity of caribou to cope with change cannot be properly gauged without the historical interpretation and ground-truthing afforded by the traditional knowledge of aboriginal caribou-hunting systems. Aboriginal communities are beginning to insist that community-based caribou monitoring become a priority of future management efforts and that it be linked to local research efforts.

The inevitability that caribou co-management boards support community-based monitoring efforts is more than a matter of adding another layer of information to the increasingly complex information needs of decision-makers. Indeed, many jurisdictions are weary of attempting to make management decisions without adequate information. Ecological studies of barren-ground caribou movements and fluctuations in population size have been done over a relatively short-time frame and comparisons between surveys are often not possible (Bergerud 1996). The traditional knowledge of caribou-dependent communities extends over a very long time period, in the case of the Denesoline in the Great Slave Lake region it extends for thousands of years.

The expression and exchange of traditional knowledge outside of its cultural context, however, is not easy--just as it is difficult for scientists to explain results without the technical terms and jargon of specialized knowledge when they attempt to relate information to lay-people. Often, traditional knowledge is expressed in ways that are difficult for biologists and resource managers to comprehend. Recollections of historical patterns of movement and distribution are often intimately tied to the personal recollections of hunters (Ferguson et al. 1998, Thorpe 2000). Explanations of abundance may be tied to grim memories of need in times of scarcity. The observations of young, active, aboriginal caribou hunters are often interpreted through the eyes of experienced elders. In these circumstances, some questions--such as "What is "normal" change and what is "dangerous" or unprecedented change?"--become central. Aboriginal elders often emphasize the importance of understanding ecological relationships. For example, focusing on whether or not these relationships are being sustained rather than on whether a critical number of animals exist. Elders not only share their knowledge of changing caribou movements, but insist on the notion that animals "monitor" and react to the changing movements and distributions of people--for example, by approaching people, not just avoiding people as a source of disturbance--as much as their movements are externally altered by people. (See Kendrick forthcoming, for accounts of Lutsel K'e elders and hunters knowledge of variations in caribou movements.)

The collection of information that will be useful to management decision-making is becoming more complex due to increasing variability in caribou movements and distribution resulting from climate change, expanded range use and the effects of industrial development. While there are endogenous effects integral to caribou systems that cause variability, there are increasing exogenous effects--and little understanding of where and when caribou populations are affected by them. For example: What are the effects when numbers are high versus low? What is the period of time between regular fluctuations in numbers?

Caribou co-management organizations are revisiting the frequency and type of monitoring done on barren ground caribou ranges. Significant changes are occurring on the barren ground caribou ranges as a result of changing weather patterns. Barren ground caribou herds in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are currently much larger (in population numbers) than they were 20 years ago when co-management boards were first established. In addition, their range use has expanded and overall knowledge of their range use has changed. Herds that were previously marginal in numbers are experiencing population increases and expanded range use. Without grounding the scientific knowledge of long-term range use patterns through the use of the traditional knowledge of aboriginal caribou-hunting communities, it will be hard to determine whether human-induced or natural variations in caribou movements are occurring and to decide how to go about ensuring the survival of barren-ground caribou herds in the face of these changes. It appears that if caribou surveys are not supplying the information needed to make management decisions, especially in increasingly variable conditions, then feedback from aboriginal hunters' observations is all the more important.

Collective Learning Leading to Institutional Change

It is difficult to gain first-hand knowledge of barren ground caribou migrations. This is primarily because barren ground caribou move the furthest distances and at the greatest speeds during periods of snow melt and snow accumulation. In addition, the timing of migration events may change with changes in abundance; seasonal locations may also vary with changing numbers. Not only is there limited scientific knowledge of caribou movements, but there is limited time depth to scientific observations about caribou and the length of time between regular fluctuations, which are thought to occur anywhere between 35-100 years. Given the uncertainty of the information available about barren ground caribou, how do people come together in co-management scenarios to understand range assessments and caribou monitoring observations in a way that is accessible to all co-management participants? Is it possible for all parties--no matter what their perspectives--to have trust in the knowledge used to make management decisions? There are a number of barriers to overcome in order to build co-management arrangements. These include: resolving conflicts over the control of biological or harvesting data, achieving consensus decisions on harvest allocations that incorporate societal values and goals into decision-making about sustainable resource use, and overcoming a lack of institutional capacity for developing alternative solutions to management problems (Pinkerton 1999).

Example:

Beverly-Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board

At the autumn 2002 meeting of the Beverly-Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board a pivotal decision was made to manage the herds based on multiple indices to be collected and formulated not only by scientists, but also by traditional caribou hunters. The work to develop such indices is set to proceed in 2003. In the past, government departments made management decisions based on the results of population estimates thought to provide enough information to make sound decisions. A survey that revealed low numbers (even if there was a large confidence interval associated with the estimate) would have left the Board in the difficult position of recommending potentially unnecessary restrictions based on the lowest level of the population estimate range (Figure 4).

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Because surveys have been done every 5-7 years since the late 1980s, the Board would then be stuck with a number that would determine management actions for several years, potentially not reveal anything different about the herd's status than the estimate done several years previous to that (Figure 4), and still not have any information about actual domestic use levels. The Board's recent discussion of a revised management plan reflects the long-standing need for: 1) new means of collecting information about the herds and, 2) alternative management actions.

The Board has acknowledged that it cannot make effective management decisions when information about population levels and harvest rates is lacking. The only way to address this lack of information is to develop multiple methodologies for collecting information about herd status from the multiple perspectives and knowledge sets that are held by people sitting at the co-management table.

Community-based monitoring is to be made a priority of the management plan and more emphasis is to be put on incorporating traditional knowledge into decision-making. The Board will continue to base its decisions on the precautionary principle especially when there is a lack of information available about a given issue.