also to be supplemented by Inuit traditional knowledge. To this end, the current set
up of the Joint Commission also includes a Traditional Knowledge Working Group
as well as a User-to-User Working Group. The approach of the Joint Commission is
therefore not to take top-down decisions that might negatively impact resource users,
but rather to include the concerns and knowledge(s) present in hunting communities.
While the Commission consists of government officials, it does not have the
mandate to make binding decisions. Instead, it advises the respective government
bodies responsible for the management of the species in question. In how far these
recommendations are adhered to is questionable. For instance, while in 2008 the
Joint Commission recommended a reduction of hunting quotas by Greenland due to
the drastic reduction of beluga and narwhal stocks, Greenland nevertheless increased
its quota. The Greenlandic government justified this step by referring to the concerns
of Greenlandic hunters who considered a reduced quota as too restrictive. Moreover,
relying on the observations of hunters in the area, Greenland was convinced that
narwhal and beluga populations were stable enough to sustain higher quotas.
27 The
conflict between scientific assessments and traditional knowledge become apparent
in this context. Already in 1998 Freeman et al. noted that one of the challenges of the
Joint Commission was to meaningfully integrate traditional knowledge into its
decision-making procedures.
28
5.5.2 Inuvialuit-Iñupiat Beluga Whale Management
The Northwest Territories in Canada and the North Slope of Alaska is the home
region of the Inuvialuit and the Iñupiat respectively. These two Inuit groups have
lived and hunted in the region for several hundred years, including whales, seals and
polar bears. In 1988, the two groups entered into an agreement on polar bear
management in the Southern Beaufort Sea (see Sect. 7.4), which was designed to
be a user-to-user agreement, concerned with the interests of the hunting communities
as well as with the conservation of polar bears. Another important species in the
region is the beluga whale. Since belugas traverse national boundaries, both the
Inuvialuit Game Council and the North Slope Borough considered it necessary to
establish a similar agreement to the polar bear agreement for the beluga.
In 1988, therefore, the Alaska and Inuvialuit Beluga Whale Committee (AIBWC)
was established. One primary reason for its establishment was the need for the
collection of catch data and the need for more biological information on the beluga
in Alaska and the Western Canadian Arctic. Especially information on ice
entrapments, ship strikes and pollution. What made the AIBWC rather unique in
its set up is the fact that half of its members comprised hunters organisations from all
over the region. The other half consisted of government representatives, scientists
and technical advisors. This setting therefore allowed the AIBWC to conduct broad
27 Fitzmaurice (2015), pp. 298–300.
28 Freeman et al. (1998), p. 143.
118
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales
up of the Joint Commission also includes a Traditional Knowledge Working Group
as well as a User-to-User Working Group. The approach of the Joint Commission is
therefore not to take top-down decisions that might negatively impact resource users,
but rather to include the concerns and knowledge(s) present in hunting communities.
While the Commission consists of government officials, it does not have the
mandate to make binding decisions. Instead, it advises the respective government
bodies responsible for the management of the species in question. In how far these
recommendations are adhered to is questionable. For instance, while in 2008 the
Joint Commission recommended a reduction of hunting quotas by Greenland due to
the drastic reduction of beluga and narwhal stocks, Greenland nevertheless increased
its quota. The Greenlandic government justified this step by referring to the concerns
of Greenlandic hunters who considered a reduced quota as too restrictive. Moreover,
relying on the observations of hunters in the area, Greenland was convinced that
narwhal and beluga populations were stable enough to sustain higher quotas.
27 The
conflict between scientific assessments and traditional knowledge become apparent
in this context. Already in 1998 Freeman et al. noted that one of the challenges of the
Joint Commission was to meaningfully integrate traditional knowledge into its
decision-making procedures.
28
5.5.2 Inuvialuit-Iñupiat Beluga Whale Management
The Northwest Territories in Canada and the North Slope of Alaska is the home
region of the Inuvialuit and the Iñupiat respectively. These two Inuit groups have
lived and hunted in the region for several hundred years, including whales, seals and
polar bears. In 1988, the two groups entered into an agreement on polar bear
management in the Southern Beaufort Sea (see Sect. 7.4), which was designed to
be a user-to-user agreement, concerned with the interests of the hunting communities
as well as with the conservation of polar bears. Another important species in the
region is the beluga whale. Since belugas traverse national boundaries, both the
Inuvialuit Game Council and the North Slope Borough considered it necessary to
establish a similar agreement to the polar bear agreement for the beluga.
In 1988, therefore, the Alaska and Inuvialuit Beluga Whale Committee (AIBWC)
was established. One primary reason for its establishment was the need for the
collection of catch data and the need for more biological information on the beluga
in Alaska and the Western Canadian Arctic. Especially information on ice
entrapments, ship strikes and pollution. What made the AIBWC rather unique in
its set up is the fact that half of its members comprised hunters organisations from all
over the region. The other half consisted of government representatives, scientists
and technical advisors. This setting therefore allowed the AIBWC to conduct broad
27 Fitzmaurice (2015), pp. 298–300.
28 Freeman et al. (1998), p. 143.
118
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales