Institutional arrangements governing marine conservation planning in the Canadian Arctic: the case of Nunavut, Canada.

Introduction

Arctic sea-ice is melting at unprecedented rates (Johanessen 2004, Strove et al. 2007), bringing dramatic change and uncertainty to northern peoples (Berkes et al. 2001). As the ice continues to melt, new shipping routes, fisheries and offshore non-renewable resource deposits are becoming more accessible to development. At the same time climate change is rapidly altering ecosystems and food webs (Moore and Huntington 2008, Mueter and Litzow 2008). These ecological changes, in combination with increasing human activity, will have profound impacts on coastal indigenous peoples throughout the Arctic (Hovelsrud et al. 2008).

These mounting pressures have brought to the forefront the need to prepare the region for the uncertain future it faces. Marine spatial planning and marine conservation planning are tools that can help coastal dependent regions adapt to change. At the federal level in Canada, integrated oceans management planning is proceeding in five large ocean management areas (LOMAs), led by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) (DFO 2002, 2005). These collaborative planning processes aim to guide ocean resource use in the regions covered.

Marine conservation is also being achieved through the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs), which can occur either as part of a larger marine planning initiative or as smaller, individual planning processes. In Canada, the majority of marine conservation/marine protected area planning has taken place at the scale of individual sites, predominantly led by federal agencies--DFO, Environment Canada and Parks Canada. While coordinated, large-scale marine planning is occurring in the Beaufort Sea in the western Arctic, very little marine planning of any kind has occurred in the central or eastern Arctic.

The institutional arrangements surrounding marine planning in the Canadian Arctic are unique when compared to the rest of Canada (Berkes and Fast 2005) as a result of physical changes, together with major political and institutional changes that have dominated the region since the introduction of the comprehensive land claims agreements (LCAs) in the 1980's and 1990's. (1) Under the LCA regimes, all resource and environmental planning in the North must be compatible with frameworks established by the LCAs that govern each region. The institutional complexities arising from northern LCAs offer both challenges and opportunities to the future of marine planning in the Canadian Arctic. As Berkes and others (2001) describe, northern LCAs add more actors to the already complex planning and management of Canada's marine environment. Table 1 (below) summarizes the key actors relevant to marine planning in Nunavut. While much has been written about marine planning efforts in the western Arctic (Fast et al. 2005, Elliot and Spek 2004, Berkes et al. 2007, Berkes et a/. 2001, Cuenette and Alder 2007), very little has focused on the status of marine planning in the rest of the Canadian Arctic, and specifically in Nunavut.

Table 1. Key actors in marine planning in Nunavut

Actor              Role and Relevance to Marine Planning in Nunavut

Federal Government Agencies

Fisheries and   * Lead government agency with regard to marine
Oceans Canada     planning and management, as well as the
(DFO)             establishment of a national network of MPAs
                * Establish and (co)manage Oceans Act MPAs

Environment     * Establish and (co)manage National Wildlife Areas,
Canada            Marine Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird
-(Canadian        Sanctuaries, which contribute to the national
Wildlife          network of MPAs
Service)

Parks Canada    * Establish and (co)manage National Parks with marine
(PC)              components and National Marine Conservation Areas,
                  both of which contribute to the national network of
                  MPAs

Indian and      * Responsible for the control and management of the
Northern          terrestrial, marine and mineral resources, oil and
Affairs Canada    gas in Nunavut and across much of the territorial
(INAC)            North (varies by Territory)

Nunavut-based Organizations

Nunavut         * Represents Inuit in the Nunavut Land Claims
Tunngavik Inc     Agreement and ensures its proper implementation
(NTI)           * Negotiate Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreements for
                  proposed MPAs on behalf of the Inuit population in
                  Nunavut

Regional Inuit  * Hold title for Inuit owned surface lands (NTI owns
Associations      subsurface rights)
(RIA): Kitik-   * Represent, protect and improve the rights and
meot, Kivalliq    benefits of Inuit
and Qikiqtani   * Negotiate Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreements for
Inuit             proposed MPAs on behalf of the Inuit population of
Associations      that specific region

Hunters and     * Community-based groups within each Inuit community,
Trappers          which manage harvesting
Organizations   * Involved at the community level with the planning of
(HTO)             MPAs impacting traditional hunting and trapping
                  territory (involvement could range from consultation
                  to advising government planning agencies) on behalf
                  of the community
                * Have been involved in Inuit Impact and Benefit
                  Agreement negotiations for proposed MPAs

Community Land  * Community-based groups involved in land-use planning
and Resource      and policy with RIA's (involvement could range from
Committees        consultation to advising)
(CLARC)         * Involved in management of certain MPAs through ACMCs
                  (see below)

Area            * Co-management groups, based in 8 Nunavut
Co-Management     communities, made up primarily of CLARC committee
Committees        members as well as a representative from the
(ACMC)            Canadian Wildlife Service
                * Manage National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird
                  Sanctuaries {those created by Environment Canada) in
                  their area

Nunavut Wild    * An Institution of Public Government (Co-management
life              Board), which advises governments and other
Management        Institutions of Public Government on issues
Board (NWMB)      regarding wildlife (including marine planning and
                  management decisions)
                * Approves establishment or disestablishment of MPAs
                  in Nunavut
                * One of four Institutions of Public Government
                  proposed for the Nunavut Marine Council

Nunavut         * An Institution of Public Government (Co-management
Planning          Board), which prepares land use plans to help guide
Commission        land/marine and resource development in Nunavut
(NPC)           * Approves the establishment of new marine
                  conservation areas
                * One of four Institutions of Public Government
                  proposed for the Nunavut Marine Council

Nunavut Water   * An Institution of Public Government (Co-management
Board (NWB)       Board), which advises governments and Institutions
                  of Public Government on issues regarding the inland
                  waters of Nunavut
                * One of four Institutions of Public Government
                  proposed for the Nunavut Marine Council

Nunavut Impact  * An Institution of Public Government (Co-management
Review Board      Board), which assesses potential development
(NIRB)            projects (including those that impact the marine
                  environment) through an impact assessment process
                * One of four Institutions of Public Government
                  proposed for the Nunavut Marine Council

This paper will explore the progress of marine planning - and the complex institutional arrangements that govern it - in the western Arctic and in Nunavut, where it will provide special focus on various multi-scale institutional and jurisdictional challenges that have led to an unorganized, piecemeal approach to marine conservation planning in the Territory. The signing of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) and the subsequent creation of the Nunavut Territory, as well as the limited involvement of the DFO in the region, have significantly contributed to the current disparity in marine policy between Nunavut and the western Arctic. Two main factors have the potential to shape the future of marine planning in Nunavut: the outcome of negotiations about the devolution of governing responsibilities between Nunavut and the Government of Canada, and the formalization of the Nunavut Marine Council, a co-management board proposed in the NLCA.

Federal Marine Conservation Legislation and Policy

In 1996, the federal government passed the Oceans Act, mandating DFO as the lead agency for integrated management and protection of Canada's Oceans. Subsequently, DFO released Canada's Oceans Strategy (2002) and Canada's Oceans Action Plan (2005), which elaborated on the measures for implementing the Oceans Act, including the focus on large-scale, regional integrated management planning processes in five marine regions or large ocean management areas (LOMAs). One of the five LOMA processes is well underway in the Beaufort Sea in the western Canadian Arctic, an area with high levels of industrial hydrocarbon activity. In that LOMA, management plans have been completed that articulate high-level marine planning objectives. To date however, the planning process has not made the transition to a spatial planning approach, in which human activities are allocated ocean space on a temporal and spatial basis (Jessen 2011)--now considered international best practice (Ehler and Douvere 2007, 2009). While the Beaufort LOMA remains the sole integrated marine planning process in the Canadian Arctic, federal agencies have been undertaking marine conservation initiatives in both the western and eastern Arctic.

The Government of Canada has made a number of international and domestic commitments to establish a representative network of MPAs in the Canadian marine environment (Gardner et al. 2008). in accordance with these commitments the Marine Protected Area Strategy and supporting federal legislation are intended to provide a framework for the development of an ecologically sound national system of MPAs, developed through collaborative approaches and embedded within larger integrated ocean management processes (DFO 2005). Federally, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Environment Canada and Parks Canada all have legislated mandates for designating different types of MPAs. The Canada Oceans Act (S.C. 1996, c. 31) and the Marine Protected Area Strategy give DFO the lead role in the coordination, development and implementation of a national system of MPAs in Canada (DFO 2005).

A number of federal legislative tools are available for marine conservation designation. The four most commonly referred to with regards to MPA development are the Oceans Act, the Canada Wildlife Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. W-9), the Migratory Birds Convention Act (S.C. 1994, c. 22) and the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act (S.C. 2002, c. 18). Under the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the authority to establish Oceans Act MPAs for four main purposes and to do so within the integrated management framework. The Canada Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act both grant legislative authority to Environment Canada to establish and manage National Wildlife Areas, Marine Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries. Parks Canada can designate and manage National Marine Conservation Areas under the National Marine Conservation Areas Act. Other federal legislation, such as the Fisheries Act and the National Parks Act, contains various conservation mechanisms, and statutes such as the Species at Risk Act can support and strengthen legislation that focuses on marine conservation (VanderZwaag and Hutchings 2005).

Canada's approach to MPA network planning, as described in the Marine Protected Areas Strategy, has been criticized specifically for the lack of significant progress in establishing MPAs in Canadian waters, for the lengthy designation processes, and for the lack of a network approach (Gardner et al. 2008, Guenette and Alder 2007, Jessen 2011). While the Oceans Act has been praised as strong environmental legislation (Boyd 2003), to date, only about 1% of Canada's ocean is protected through MPAs. To date, only one Oceans Act MPA has been designated in the Canadian Arctic and none have progressed far enough to be expected in the near future. The implementation of both the Oceans Act and the national MPA strategy by DFO and other key agencies has caused many to question the effectiveness of the legislative mechanisms available for MPA development (VanderZwaag and Hutchings 2005, Boyd 2003). For example, resource and capacity gaps, a lack of political will to fulfill MPA mandates, an overemphasis on reaching total consensus among stakeholders, and a lack of leadership and direction among government agencies have all been cited as key constraints (VanderZwaag and Hutchings 2005, Gardner et al. 2008, Guenette and Alder 2007, Jessen 2011). Concerns have also been raised about the difficulty of nesting regionally based MPA initiatives within DFO's large ocean management area initiatives, which cover immense areas of the marine environment. Furthermore, Dickinson et a/. (2009) note that focusing MPA designation solely within LOMAs restricts many other ecologically and biologically significant marine areas from being protected under the Oceans Act.

With little progress made so far towards establishing a representative network of MPAs in Canada, many critics suggest that it is unlikely the government will be able to accelerate progress in MPA establishment and reach the international commitment to completion of a representative network by 2012 (Gardner et al. 2008, Dickinson et al. 2009).

Territorial Marine Conservation Legislation and Policy

The Canadian territories, which encompass the majority of Canada's Arctic coastline, do not have constitutional jurisdiction and authority equivalent to Canadian provinces. Instead, in Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories, 'province-like' powers are delegated by the federal government through the acts of devolution (Yukon Act S.C. 2002, c. 7; Northwest Territories Act R.S.C. 1985, c. N-27; Nunavut Act S.C. 1993, c. 28). Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) has been the federal agency responsible for land-use, resource and environmental management decisions in the north (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act R.S.C. 1985, c. 1-6). Land and resource management powers were devolved to Yukon in 2003, while lengthy devolution negotiations regarding similar powers continue for the Northwest Territories. In Nunavut, negotiations between the Government of Canada, the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI), representing the Inuit beneficiaries of the NLCA, are ongoing with no clear date in sight for finalizing an agreement (Mayer 2007). Both the Government of Nunavut and NTI have expressly stated their interest in gaining jurisdiction over marine areas (NTI 2007, Mayer 2007), which would alter the institutional structure surrounding marine planning and management in Nunavut. The possibility of devolution of marine management is discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections, but until those responsibilities are devolved, the territorial government will continue to have little legal jurisdiction in the marine planning and management realm.

With regard to territorial law in Nunavut, the only legislation that would pertain to marine planning is the Nunavut Wildlife Act (R.S.N.W.T. (Nu.) 1988, c. W-4). That legislation sets up a wildlife and habitat management structure, which functions within the wildlife management framework set forth by the NLCA. The umbrella Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IBA), signed between Inuit beneficiaries of the NLCA and the Government of Canada specifically states that the Nunavut Wildlife Act applies to both National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (Environment Canada et al. 2008), which are both instruments that may also be applied to marine conservation. In addition, the Territorial Parks Act may allow for the protection of small areas of the marine environment adjacent to the coastline, within terrestrial parks, such as fjords. However, because the territorial park planning process has been largely terrestrial and has only minor implications for marine planning in Nunavut, it is not considered in this paper.

Until devolution takes place, the Government of Nunavut and Inuit organizations established under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement have little power or jurisdiction in the marine context and consequently lack legislation, policy or strategy that would allow ocean issues to be addressed through the planning and management of adjacent marine areas leaving these issues in the hands of the federal government.

Northern Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements

In much of the Canadian Arctic, comprehensive Land Claim Agreements (LCAs) between the Government of Canada and regional aboriginal groups govern the way land and resources (including the marine environment and coastal resources) are managed in various settlement areas. Seven Northern LCAs have at least some bearing on the Arctic coastal zone (Berkes et al. 2007), four of which are located directly on the coast--The Western Arctic Claimilnuvialuit Final Agreement (1984), Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (1993), James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (1975), and the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (2005). All four of these LCAs either partially or solely involve local Inuit people, many of whom reside in coastal communities and depend upon coastal resources for their subsistence and economic means (Myers et al. 2007, Gillis 1995). In the Western Arctic, Nunavut, and Labrador agreements, Inuit were the sole indigenous group involved in the LCA, whereas both Inuit and Cree were involved in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Aside from the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the above-mentioned LCAs have been negotiated under the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy (1974), a federal policy for the negotiation and settlement of Aboriginal land claims. This policy guides the negotiation of comprehensive LCAs, defines the rights and benefits to be dealt with in an agreement based on the premise of continuing indigenous title to land and resources, and mandates that each LCA be accompanied by an implementation plan (INAC 1981, INAC 2003).

The comprehensive LCAs are essentially arrangements between Canadian Inuit and other indigenous group(s) and the Government of Canada, and include the management of land and resources (Berkes et al. 2005) and the marine environment. Each LCA addresses various resource management issues (i.e. fisheries, wildlife, etc.), typically using co-management boards and joint committees as the instruments of joint jurisdiction in the planning and management of resources (Berkes et al. 2001, Berkes et al. 2007, Doubleday 1989). Comprehensive LCAs have led to the implementation of participatory resource management processes in many areas of the Canadian Arctic, including integrated marine and protected area management. The increase in participatory planning and management has emerged as a result of increased authority enjoyed by Northern indigenous people, largely due to LCAs (Berkes et al. 2001).

While there are similarities among the LCAs, each settlement area possesses a unique set of physical, social, economic and political characteristics, which drive land claims negotiations and create differences in agreements that are specific to the area they are serving. This is the case for both the Inuvialuit Final Agreement in the western Arctic and for the NLCA in the central and eastern Arctic, but for the purposes of this paper, we will focus on the particulars of the NLCA relevant to marine planning in Nunavut.

Nunavut Land Claims Agreement

The NLCA (1993) is similar in structure, yet more comprehensive and complex than the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. The Agreement--signed between Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut (representing the Inuit of Nunavut), the Government of Canada, and the Government of the Northwest Territories--paved the way for the creation of Nunavut as Canada's third territory.

Coastal resources are critically important to Nunavummiut, the people of Nunavut, with 26 of 27 Nunavut communities situated on the coast. The importance of coastal resources and the marine environment is evidenced in the significant portion of the NLCA directly addressing coastal and marine issues. Almost half of the 42 articles of the agreement are related to marine issues (Gillis 1995). Article 15, 'Marine Areas,' outlines a number of principles (section 15.1. 1) that provide a basis for specific marine management provisions. The principles acknowledge that:

  Inuit are traditional and current users of certain marine areas; the
  legal rights of Inuit in marine areas flowing from the Agreement are
  based on traditional and current use: an Inuit economy based in part
  on marine resources is both viable and desirable; there is a need to
  develop and co-ordinate policies regarding the marine areas; and
  there is a need for Inuit involvement in aspects of Arctic marine
  management, including research (Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act,
  S.C. 1993, c. 29, 135).

Twelve additional articles on 'Wildlife,' 'Conservation Areas' and 'Land Use Planning' also contain provisions relating specifically to marine management issues. Procedures to guide the establishment of parks (Article 8) and conservation areas (Article 9), and marine management and planning, include provisions for thorough public consultation processes (Gillis 1995). Inuit ownership of 18% of Nunavut's surface land base and a smaller proportion of the sub-surface, together referred to as Inuit owned lands, are managed by various designated Inuit organizations, including the three Regional Inuit Associations and the Land Administration department of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI). While the federal government did not allow for marine areas to be selected as Inuit Owned Lands, the NLCA secures the Inuit right to hunt, trap and fish anywhere (terrestrial or marine) in the Nunavut Settlement Area without having to obtain a permit, including all protected areas.

Berkes and Fast (2005, 10) point out that all of the northern comprehensive LCAs have sections "that specify the sharing of jurisdiction for fisheries and wildlife management, creating co-management boards as the main instruments of resource management". The NLCA includes provisions for five public co-management boards,2 which represent the interests of the Inuit, federal government and territorial government (representing Inuit and non-Inuit residents) (Legare 1996). The Boards are designed to advise the federal government and possess no formal decision-making authority (CWS 2009).

On marine issues the NLCA also contains provisions in Article 15 for the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Nunavut Planning Commission, Nunavut Water Board and Nunavut Impact Review Board to jointly form the Nunavut Marine Council (NMC) to "advise and make recommendations to other government agencies regarding the marine areas. In the absence of the council, each of the four bodies can make recommendations to be considered by government separate from each other" (NLCA Act 1993, 136). If established, the Council would provide Inuit with a voice in decisions regarding marine planning and the formulation of marine policy. The council would be a key player in any large scale marine planning or marine conservation initiatives. At the time of writing, the NMC had not yet been formally established, and--as discussed later in this paper--serious discussions were not underway to establish it.

The four organizations noted above--which have been established under NLCA--play key roles in marine planning and management, as is illustrated in Table 1. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is the main institution through which Inuit can participate in decision-making about wildlife management, including marine wildlife. Among many other responsibilities, the Board can provide advice to territorial and federal governments and other institutions of public government with regard to the planning and management of the marine environment, and can establish or change the boundaries of conservation areas. Because wildlife issues are of special significance to Inuit, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has a major influence on resource management in Nunavut.

The Nunavut Planning Commission also has marine responsibilities with a mandate that "applies to both land and marine areas within the Nunavut Settlement Area and the Outer Land Fast Ice Zone" (NLCA 1993, 91). Nunavut land-use plans developed by the Planning Commission, will consider how terrestrial land-use will impact the marine environment. The Nunavut Planning Commission also advises government agencies on marine planning and management issues. For example, although existing protected areas are automatically included in land-use plans, proposals involving new marine conservation areas must be approved by the Planning Commission (Nunavut Planning Commission 2000). The Planning Commission is also mandated to identify areas (land and marine) with a conservation value attached to them.

The Nunavut Impact Review Board's role is to perform environmental and socio-economic impact assessments for project development, which could include projects in, or projects that impact, marine areas. The Review Board may also advise various government agencies and co-management boards on marine planning and management issues. In the case of protected areas, the Nunavut Impact Review Board considers all impacts a potential project might have on the integrity of the conserved area in its decision to allow a project to go ahead.

Other advisory bodies that have a stake in both marine and conservation planning at smaller scales in Nunavut are also empowered by the NLCA (Article 5). On a regional scale, three regional wildlife associations were established, as well as Hunters and Trappers Organizations in each community. These organizations are concerned mostly with wildlife harvest issues, but the Hunters and Trappers Organizations are intensely involved in community-level planning and management of protected areas that impact their communities.

The NLCA also includes provisions for compensation for impacts associated with development projects in the region. Pursuant to Article 26, no major development can take place within the Nunavut Settlement Area until an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA) has been finalized, compensating Inuit for expected impacts of the project, providing direct benefits to Inuit, and in some cases giving them a mechanism to participate in decisions related to the project. IIBAs are an important part of the establishment process for all protected areas in the Nunavut Settlement Area. Articles 8 and 9 explicitly state that all parks, conservation or wildlife areas created within the borders of the Nunavut Settlement Area are subject to the finalization of an IIBA (NLCA 1993), and they have been negotiated for all of Nunavut's National and Territorial parks, national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries.

Evolution of Institutional Arrangements for Marine Conservation Planning in the Canadian Arctic

Marine planning in the Arctic has traditionally focused on fisheries and sovereignty issues (CAFF 2000); however, during recent decades the focus has shifted to large-scale integrated management and conservation initiatives. Until the mid-1980's, before the existence of Nunavut, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC, then the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) was the sole government agency in charge of land and marine use planning in the Canadian territories. INAC's mandate included the coastal zone and marine planning, though little marine planning ever occurred under this process (Mills 1984). During this time the government came under pressure to develop a better conservation policy for the North. In the report of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry, Thomas Berger (1977) recommended that a conservation strategy be created for the Canadian North that included protection of the marine environment. In 1984 the Task Force on Northern Conservation, an intergovernmental body consisting of agency representatives from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, as well as the territorial governments (Yukon and Northwest Territories), advised the federal government to develop a comprehensive northern conservation strategy. The Task Force further recommended that DFO take responsibility for marine conservation in the Arctic Ocean (Snider 1987), which prompted DFO to publish a discussion paper, in 1987, on marine conservation that included six implementation strategies (Welch 1995). The strategies included the concepts of joint management and integrated resource planning and management. Welsh (1995) notes that the marine conservation strategy developed by DFO was never fully implemented due to a lack of resources within DFO and other federal agencies. Failure to follow through with policy on marine planning in the North is not uncommon. Indeed, the failed implementation of the 1987 DFO strategy was a sign of things to come, at least for the central and eastern Arctic.

The Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) LCA and the NLCA completely altered the concept of marine planning in the Arctic, and led to significant political and institutional transformation. The creation of the Nunavut territory, a product of the land claims process (Nunavut Act 1993), divided the former Northwest Territories into two territories, creating new jurisdictions and institutions for the terrestrial and marine environments and resources falling within the newly established borders of Nunavut. In order to cope with the organizational challenge that was to accompany the creation of the new Territory, a seven-year delay in the formal existence of Nunavut followed the signing of the NLCA and the passing of the Nunavut Act. The reorganization period, as well as the period leading up to the signing of the NLCA, created a lull in marine planning and policy activity. The addition of the National Wildlife Area provision in the Canada Wildlife Act and the enactment of the Oceans Act, in the mid 1990's, further complicated the institutional landscape with regards to marine conservation planning in the North.

Perhaps the most significant change associated with the northern LCAs was the introduction of joint management of resources between indigenous people and territorial and federal governments. The co-management boards and joint committees created by the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) and the NLCA, provide local Inuit with instruments to participate meaningfully in resource management decisions in the various settlement areas. For example, prior to the NLCA the only way for local Inuit in Nunavut to ensure their role in land-use or resource management decisions was through the Inuit-owned land selection process (CWS 2009). Local participation drastically changed with the formalization of joint management frameworks built into the LCAs. Berkes and Fast (2005) argue that the co-management mechanisms created by LCAs and a history of "joint problem solving" in the context of land and resource management differentiates the Canadian North from other coastal areas of Canada. The changes over the past two decades in northern Canada have brought about an increase in participatory planning and management from the community level in the Territories. Community support, often garnered through mechanisms such as participatory planning, are especially important for marine conservation efforts as government agencies are reluctant to pursue MPA initiatives without local support (Mallory et al. 2006, Gardner et al. 2008). Inuit participation in marine planning has been encouraged and traditional ecological knowledge is considered as important as western scientific knowledge in the NLCA (Berkes et al. 2001). One example is the Bowhead Knowledge Study, which was produced in accordance with the NLCA (Hay et al. 2000).

Another dramatic change in marine conservation planning associated with the NLCA was the inclusion of the IIBA provision. As mentioned above, IIBAs have now been completed for a number of parks and conservation areas. The IIBA negotiation process can be long and expensive, as was exemplified by the Conservation Areas IIBA negotiations between the federal government and various Inuit organizations (namely NTI), which extended from 2001 until 2008. In the case of three recently announced National Wildlife Areas, IIBA negotiations significantly delayed their establishment and the protection they will provide for the marine environment (Mallory et al. 2006). Aside from economic and infrastructure gains often associated with IIBAs, Inuit communities can also receive benefits in the form of mandated joint management regarding proposed development. In the case of the IIBA for Environment Canada's conservation areas, each Migratory Bird Sanctuary or National Wildlife Area is to be jointly managed by affected Inuit and the federal government as Area Co-management Committees (CWS 2009). While Oceans Act MPAs do not come under the IIBA provisions of the NCLA, given the current emphasis by DFO on participatory planning processes, it is expected that IIBAs will be negotiated for MPAs.

The institutional landscape governing marine conservation planning and management has been radically reformed in the past two and a half decades. The changes have led to a restructuring of institutional arrangements, and the adoption of adaptive management, or learning-by-doing approaches, which Berkes et al. (2005) note are complementary to an Inuit culture with a long tradition of learning-by-doing. For example, recent, unpublished research by the authors has found that participants in the !IBA negotiations for protected areas have gained a number of intangible benefits, including an increase in social capital and familiarity with the process, which should allow future negotiations to be more efficient and effective. The adaptive co-management approach (Folke et al. 2002) and multi-level governance system (local, regional and national scale institutions) resulting from the northern LCAs have translated into slow moving processes (Berkes et al. 2001)--including conservation planning processes (Mallory et al. 2006). However, these processes may also lead to greater resiliency and capacity to adapt to change at all institutional scales (Berkes et al. 2005), an important characteristic given the uncertainty facing northern communities in a changing physical and social climate.

Current Situation for Marine Planning and MPA Initiatives

In the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, the Beaufort Sea LOMA represents the only integrated ocean management initiative in the Arctic. During the 1990's oil and natural gas exploration activities in the Mackenzie River estuary increased, which created environmental challenges in the area and raised the need for integrated management in the region (Fast et al. 2005). The process, initiated by DFO, began with the establishment of the Beaufort Sea Integrated Planning Initiative in 1999, which was a collaboration between Inuvialuit organizations and co-management bodies established by the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, DFO, INAC, and later, participation from the hydrocarbon industry (Beaufort Sea Partnership 2008, Berkes et al. 2007). The first task assigned to the Beaufort Sea Integrated Planning Initiative was the establishment of the Arctic's first MPA under the Oceans Act, Tarium Niryutait. Planning for the Tarium Niryutait MPA began in 1999 and was concluded in August 2010 with its legal designation (Canada Gazette II SOR/2010-190). The MPA is, in fact, a formalization of voluntary restricted zones established under the Beaufort Sea Beluga Management Plan (FJMC 2001).

As the integrated process grew into the larger LOMA process, the Beaufort Sea Integrated Planning Initiative was replaced by a Regional Coordination Committee made up of Inuvialuit organizations, co-management bodies and federal and territorial agencies (Beaufort Sea Partnership 2008). The role of the Regional Coordination Committee is to provide direction and leadership to the planning process. The LOMA integrated management regime also developed the Beaufort Sea Partnership as the main vehicle for stakeholder involvement, as well as five working groups. The working groups consist of a number of organizations and agencies (many of which are members of the Partnership), which vary depending on the group. They include the Biophysical, the Geographic Information, the Social, Cultural and Economic, the Traditional Knowledge, and the Community Consultation Working Groups (formally the Beaufort Sea Integrated Planning Initiative) (Beaufort Sea Partnership 2010a).

In addition to the Tarium Niryutait MPA, the integrated management initiative has also seen DFO work with scientific and local communities and organizations to identify 20 marine-based ecologically and biologically significant areas to receive special management considerations during the planning process. Considerations may include conservation measures. Currently, the stakeholders involved in the integrated management process along with the DFO Planning Secretariat have developed a more comprehensive integrated ocean management plan for the Beaufort Sea LOMA, which will be used to guide management activities. This plan was approved by the Minister in August 2010 (DFO, 2010). Additionally, DFO has recently been consulting with local communities about the potential establishment of a second MPA at Darnley Bay in the lnuvialuit Settlement Region, which would occur as part of the integrated management process (Beaufort Sea Partnership 2010b).

In contrast, no coordinated marine planning initiatives have occurred in the Nunavut region to date, which also lacks a comprehensive marine conservation strategy or policy, both on a territorial and a regional level. Marine planning in Nunavut has remained predominantly piecemeal, despite the fact that the area accounts for a significant portion of Canada's marine estate. A study initiated by DFO on marine issues in the Baffin region of Nunavut noted the need for a strong DFO presence in the Territory (Terriplan Consultants Ltd. and IER 2003). DFO conducted a Baffin Marine Issues Scan in 2001-2002 with the goal of identifying priority issues within the Baffin Island region (and Nunavut generally) that would address "common challenges and opportunities associated with implementation of an integrated ocean resource management process in Nunavut" (Terriplan Consultants Ltd. and IER 2003, 4). To this point, no integrated management process has been initiated for Nunavut's marine environment. Recently, DFO has been consulting local communities, territorial agencies and Inuit organizations on future Oceans Act MPAs in Nunavut (CWS 2009), and a potential site has been selected in Foxe Basin, although not yet announced by the Minister.

Environment Canada has established eight migratory bird sanctuaries and five National Wildlife Areas in Nunavut, several of which preserve important marine bird habitat (Mallory et al. 2006, CWS 2009). Three recently designated National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2010) are located on the east coast of Baffin Island, including Niginganiq National Wildlife Area, a critical bowhead whale habitat. The process to designate this site lasted over 20 years, in part due to the various institutional difficulties described in this paper.

In 1987, Parks Canada proposed a marine conservation initiative in Lancaster Sound, which is considered among the most biologically important areas in the Canadian Arctic. The agency's efforts were suspended, however, during the feasibility assessment phase at the request of local Inuit. In 2009, Parks Canada announced new funding to resume a feasibility study for a potential national marine conservation area (NMCA) in Lancaster Sound (Parks Canada 2009). The inconsistent management resulting from lack of a comprehensive approach to marine planning in Nunavut was demonstrated recently with the federal government's announcement that seismic testing would be conducted to determine potential oil and gas resources in the same area being considered for protection. The Inuit objected to the proposed testing and when the government decided to proceed, the Inuit launched court proceedings and successfully won an injunction, halting the study. In early December 2010, the Government of Canada announced a proposed boundary for the Lancaster Sound NMCA, which will be considered in future public consultations (Parks Canada 2010).

Comprehensive marine planning still eludes the central and eastern Arctic. The potential of the tools provided by the NLCA related to marine planning have not been realized. The obvious example is the failure to fully establish the Nunavut Marine Council, which is discussed below in greater detail. Another example is the failure to follow through on recommendations developed under section 9.3.1 of the NLCA, which states that:

  Government, in consultation with Inuit, shall conduct a study to
  determine the need for new legislation or amendments to existing
  legislation to designate and manage Conservation Areas in
  terrestrial and marine environment in the Nunavut Settlement
  Area. This study shall be completed and published by Government
  within two years of the date of ratification of the Agreement
  (NLCA 1993, 80).

In response to this section, Nigel Banks at the University of Calgary conducted and published his report Review of conservation area legislation in Nunavut, 1998 and a working group was convened to assess the report's recommendations. However, the recommendations in the report have not been acted upon. Ambiguous interpretation of various sections of the NLCA has been cited as a key issue preventing full implementation (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2006). Looking to the future, these and other issues will need to be addressed if efficient and effective institutional structures for the planning and management of Nunavut's marine areas are to be developed.

The Future of Marine Planning in the Canadian Arctic

We have highlighted the numerous shortfalls and gaps that exist in the institutional arrangements for marine conservation planning in the Canadian Arctic, particularly in Nunavut. The added jurisdictional layers arising from comprehensive LCAs have resulted in a more complex system for marine governance and have added both challenges and opportunities in the institutional landscape surrounding marine governance and planning.

The Beaufort Sea is one of five areas undergoing an integrated management process under the leadership of DFO, which has given a greater degree of institutional structure and stability to the realm of marine planning and governance in the Inuvialuit Settlement Area. The commitment to marine planning in the Beaufort LOMA may be in part due to the hydrocarbon activity that has heightened tensions between marine resource users (Fast et al. 2005, Elliot and Spek 2004), and has fostered much research on its possible impacts. Looking forward, all marine planning, including conservation initiatives will be initiated and developed within the integrated management forum. The management plans developed until now identify high-level objectives but the details regarding human use of marine areas have yet to be formulated through the planning process. The integrated marine management process will continuously be shaped and evolve towards a comprehensive and detailed integrated management plan regarding marine use in collaboration with all stakeholders.

By comparison, limited marine industrial activity has taken place in Nunavut, although as climate change leads to the melting of the Arctic ice cap, there will be pressure to pursue new economic opportunities, for example in the offshore oil and gas and shipping sectors. So far, no comprehensive approach for managing Nunavut's marine environment has been developed, although some small-scale marine conservation efforts have occurred in Nunavut on a project-by-project basis. Given these recent experiences, in the future, two key governance factors will most likely influence how marine environmental planning and management proceed in Nunavut: the devolution of powers from the federal to territorial government and the formal establishment of the NMC.

Currently, the management of the marine environment in Nunavut remains exclusively under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Under threat of withdrawing from the negotiations (Mayer 2007), the Government of Nunavut and NTI both insist that devolution negotiations include 'province-like' powers for the marine environment (NTI 2007), which would enable the territory to collect revenues from offshore, non-renewable resource extraction (Mayer 2007). The devolution of marine responsibilities to the Government of Nunavut would likely lead to a more comprehensive policy for marine use in Nunavut's marine areas. At the same time devolution could also lead to numerous challenges and complexities inherent in the reorganization of existing systems, and could very well stall progress on current marine conservation initiatives. If marine management responsibilities are devolved to the Government of Nunavut, industrial marine development can be expected to compete with other marine uses, as the Government of Nunavut has indicated its desire for increased economic development in the region.

The second crucial institutional change that would affect marine planning and management in Nunavut is the formalization of the NMC. If established, the Council would bring together the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, the Nunavut Planning Commission, the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Water Board to coordinate policy direction for the planning, development and management of Nunavut's marine areas (NTI 2007). Currently, these existing organizations have been providing piecemeal and independent recommendations to federal government agencies on marine issues. NTI is suing the Government of Canada, based on a number of NLCA provisions that have remained unimplemented including the marine council (NTI 2006). The federal government disagrees with NTI's interpretation of Section 15.4.1--that Canada is responsible for providing the resources needed to implement the NMC, and argues that it is the responsibility of NTI and the other NLCA institutions to implement these provisions (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2006). Essentially, the conflict is an issue of interpretation, which, at the time of writing, remains unresolved.

Many have argued that the creation of the NMC will allow Canada to document its plans for Arctic marine development, and thereby assert its sovereignty over the region (Fenge 2008, Lackenbauer 2009, Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans 2009). For this reason, many organizations have recommended the formal establishment of the NMC, including the Canadian International Council and the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (Lackenbauer 2009, Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans 2009, NTI 2007, PricewaterhouseCoopers 2006). The biggest obstacle to the formation of the Council is the lack of capacity and resources within the existing NLCA organizations. The formal establishment of the Council would provide Nunavut and the Arctic with a more complete institutional structure and would likely lead to the development of a comprehensive planning process for the region. More importantly, without the establishment of a body like the NMC, marine planning in Nunavut will continue to proceed in a piecemeal and uncoordinated manner, which is inadequate in the face of the ecological and other uncertainties facing the region.

Conclusion

A number of complex realities and uncertainties face coastal Inuit and communities across the Arctic. The onset of climate change and the potential for rapid industrial development in many sectors are just two pressures exerting themselves on marine systems. Marine planning and management are important tools for adapting to future realities. In the western Arctic, where a DFO-led integrated management process has been focused, a more coordinated and robust institutional structure is progressing for the planning and management of marine areas. However, as outlined in this paper, a disparity exists between the approaches to marine governance and planning in the western and eastern Arctic. While planning initiatives have been established in the western parts of the Canadian Arctic Ocean, the majority of the Arctic marine environment, particularly in Nunavut, remains subject to piecemeal and uncoordinated institutional arrangements for marine planning.

Major hurdles remain in implementing a coordinated marine planning effort in Nunavut. The absence of DFO activity in the region and the unique and complex institutional environment, driven largely by the NLCA, surrounding marine planning and governance are among the challenges explored in this paper. The authors also note that the same institutional environment that has created challenges has also provided opportunities for the future of marine planning in the territory. The realization of the NMC would provide a positive step forward for the future of marine planning in the territory, as it would establish a single co-management structure capable of coordinating and directing marine policy and management in the region. Additionally, a greater DFO presence in Nunavut would also benefit the marine planning effort as it would inject a new level of coordination and leadership into the planning and management arena. Together, the addition of the NMC and more leadership from DFO would go a long way to creating a more stable, certain and integrated institutional environment, in which to move forward with marine planning and conservation in one of Canada's largest and most vulnerable marine systems.

References

Beaufort Sea Partnership. 2008. Social, Cultural and Economic Overview and Assessment Report for the Beaufort Sea LOMA. Inuvik, NT: Social, Cultural and Economic Working Group, Beaufort Sea Partnership.

Beaufort Sea Partnership. 2010a. Beaufort Sea Integrated Oceans Management. http://www.beaufortseapartnership.ca

Beaufort Sea Partnership. 2010b. Proposed Darnley Bay Area of Interest for a Marine Protected Area. http://www.beaufortseapartnership.caiDarnley_Bay. html

Berger, T. 1977. Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: The report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of Supply and Services.

Berkes, F., N. Banks, M. Marschke, D. Armitage and D. Clark. 2005. Cross-scale Institutions and Building Resilience in the Canadian North. In Breaking Ice: Renewable resource and ocean management in the Canadian North, edited by F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau and A. Diduck, 225-247. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Press.

Berkes, F. and H. Fast. 2005. Introduction. In Breaking Ice: Renewable resource and ocean management in the Canadian North, edited by F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau and A. Diduck, 1-19. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Press.

Berkes, F., J. Mathias, M. Kislalioglu and H. Fast. 2001. The Canadian Arctic and the Oceans Act: The development of participatory environmental research and management. Ocean & Coastal Management 44: 451-469.

Berkes, F., M.K. Berkes and H. Fast. 2007. Collaborative Integrated Management in Canada's North: The role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based monitoring. Coastal Management 35: 143-162.

Boyd, D. 2003. Unnatural Law: Rethinking Canadian environmental law and policy. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Canada Gazette II. 25 August 2010. Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Areas Regulations. SOR/2010-190 vol. 144, no. 19. http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rpprip2/2010/2010-09-15/htmlisor-dors1 90-eng.html

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). 2009. Area Co-Management Committee, Ninginganiq National Wildlife Area: Orientation manual. lqaluit, NT: Environment Canada.

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF). 2000. A Summary of Legal Instruments and National Frameworks for Arctic Marine Conservation. Akureyri, Iceland: CAFF International Secretariat.

Dickinson, M., T.I. Gunton and M.B. Rutherford. 2009. Benefits of Marine Planning: Evaluation of marine planning in Canada. Marine Planning Research Report No. 2.

Doubleday, N. C. 1989. Co-Management Provisions of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. In Cooperative Management of Local Fisheries, edited by E. Pinkerton, 209-229. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.

Ehler, C. and F. Douvere. 2007. Visions for a Sea Change. Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. Paris, France: Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 48, IOCAM Dossier No. 4.

Ehler, C. and F. Douvere. 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: A step by step approach toward ecosystem-based management. Paris, France: Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6.

Elliot, G. and B. Spek. 2004. Integrated Management Planning in the Beaufort Sea: Blending natural and social science in a settled Land Claim Area. Unpublished manuscript.

Environment Canada. 2010. Three New National Wildlife Areas Protect Key Habitat in Nunavut. Press release. June 8, 2010.

Environment Canada, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, The Kitikmeot Inuit Association, The Kivalliq Inuit Association, The Qikiqtani Inuit Association, and The Nangmautaq Hunters and Trappers Organization. 2008. Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries in the Nunavut Settlement Area.

Fast, H., D.B Chiperzak, K.J. Cott and G.M. Elliot. 2005. Integrated Management Planning in Canada's Western Arctic: An adaptive consultation process. In Breaking Ice: Renewable resource and ocean management in the Canadian North, edited by F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau and A. Diduck, 95-117. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Press.

Fenge, T. 2008. Inuit and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement: Supporting Canada's arctic sovereignty. Policy Options 29: 84-88.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2002. Canada's Oceans Strategy: Our oceans, our future. Ottawa, ON: Fisheries and Oceans Canada--Oceans Directorate.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2005. Canada's Oceans Action Plan: For present and future generations. Ottawa, ON: Fisheries and Oceans Canada--Communications Branch.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO. 27 August 2010. Press Release--Announcement of an Integrated Oceans Management Plan for the Beaufort Sea. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/mediainpress-communique/2010/hq-ac43-eng.htm

Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC). 2001. Beaufort Sea Beluga Management Plan (3rd printing). Inuvik, NT: FJMC.

Folke, C., S. Carpenter and T. Elmquvist. 2002. Resilience for Sustainable Development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31(5): 437-440.

Gardner, J., S. Bicego, S. Jessen and M. Baker. 2008. Challenges and Opportunities in Progress: Towards Canada's commitment to a national network of MPA by 2012. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

Gillis, B. 1995. The Nunavut Final Agreement and Marine Management in the North. Northern Perspectives 23(1): online. http://www.carc.org/pubs/ v23no1/marine4.htm

Guenette, S. and J. Alder. 2007. Lessons From Marine Protected Areas and Integrated Management Initiatives in Canada. Coastal Management 35: 51-78.

Hay, K., D. Aglukark, D. Igutsaq, J. Ikkidluaq and M. Mike. 2000. Final Report of the Inuit Bowhead Knowledge Study. Igaluit, NU: Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.

Hovelsrud, G.K., M. McKenna and H.P. Huntington. 2008. Marine Mammal Harvests and Other Interactions with Humans. Ecological Applications 18(2): Supplement, S135-S147.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 1981. In All Fairness: A Native Claims Policy. Ottawa, ON: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2003. Implementation of Comprehensive Land Claim and Self-Government Agreements. Ottawa, ON: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Jessen, S. 2011. A Review of Canada's Implementation of the Oceans Act since 1997 - From leader to follower? Coastal Management 39: 20-56.

Johannessen, 0.M., L. Bengtsson, M.W. Miles, S.I. Kuzmina, V.A. Semenov, G.V. Alekseev, A.P. Nagurnyi, Z.F. Zagharov, L.P. Bobylev, L.H. Pettersson, K. Hasselmann and H.P. Cattle. 2004. Arctic Climate Change: Observed and modelled temperature and sea-ice variability. Tellus 56A: 328-341.

Lackenbauer, P.W. 2009, From Polar Race to Polar Saga: An integrated strategy for Canada and the circumpolar world. Toronto, ON: Canadian International Council.

Legare, A. 1996. The Process Leading to a Land Claims Agreement and its Implementation: The case of the Nunavut Land Claims Settlement. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies 16(1): 139-163.

Mayer, P. 2007. Mayer Report on Nunavut Devolution. Ottawa, ON: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Mallory, M.L., A.J. Fontaine, J.A. Akearok and V.H. Johnston. 2006. Synergy of Local Ecological Knowledge, Community Involvement and Scientific Study to Develop Marine Wildlife Areas in Eastern Arctic Canada. Polar Record 42(222): 205-216.

Mills, H. 1984. Arctic Marine Conservation. Halifax, NS: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Moore, S.E. and H.P. Huntington. 2008. Arctic Marine Mammals and Climate Change: Impacts and resilience. Ecological Applications 18(2): Supplement, S157-S165.

Mueter, F.J. and M.A. Litzow. 2008. Sea Ice Retreat Alters the Biogeography of the Bering Sea Continental Shelf. Ecological Applications 18(2): 309-320.

Myers, H., H. Fast, M.K. Berkes and F. Berkes. 2007. Feeding the Family in Times of Change. In Breaking Ice: Renewable resource and ocean management in the Canadian North, edited by F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau and A. Diduck, 23-45. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). 25 May 1993. Agreement Between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. http://nlca.tunngavik.com/

Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC). 2000. North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan. Cambridge Bay, NU: Nunavut Planning Commission.

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI). 2006. "NTI Launches Lawsuit Against Government of Canada for Breach of Contract." Press release. December 6, 2006. http://www.tunngavik.com/2006/12/06/nti-launches-lawsuit-against-government-of-canada-for-breach-of-contract/

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI). 2007. Devolution and Marine Areas. Discussion paper presented to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Vancouver, BC.

Parks Canada. 8 December 2009. "Government of Canada takes steps to protect Lancaster Sound in Canada's North." Press release.

Parks Canada. 6 December 2010. "Government of Canada presents boundary proposal for Lancaster Sound National Marine Conservation Area--critical step forward in protecting the 'Serengeti of the Arctic'." http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/cp-nr/release_e.asp?id=1679&andorl=nr

PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2006. Second Independent Five Year Review of Implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Prepared for the Governments of Canada and Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

Snider, E. 1987. The Arctic Marine Conservation Strategy. Northern Perspectives 15(4): online. httpliwww.carc.orgipubsfv15no4/4.11rn

Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. 2009. Rising to the Arctic Challenge: Report on the Canadian Coastguard. Ottawa, ON: Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Stroeve, J., M.M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos and M. Serreze. 2007. Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than forecast. Geophysical Research Letters 34: L09591

VanderZwaag, D.L. and J.A. Hutchings. 2005. Canada's Marine Species at Risk: Science and law at the helm, but a sea of uncertainty. Ocean Development and International Law 36: 219-259.

Welch, H.E. 1995. Marine Conservation in the Canadian Arctic: A regional overview. Northern Perspectives, 23(1): online. http://www.carc.orgfpubsl v23nol/marine3.htm

(1) Comprehensive LCAs in Northern Canada: James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, 1975; The Inuvialuit Final Agreement, 1985; The Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, 1992; Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, 1993; Umbrella Final Agreement between the Government of Canada, the Council for Yukon Indians, and the Government of the Yukon, 1993; and Sahtu Dene and M'etis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, 1993.

(2) The five joint management boards established by the NLCA are the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, the Nunavut Planning Commission, the Nunavut Water Board, the Surface Rights Tribunal and the Nunavut Impact Review Board.

Tyson Daoust is a graduate student with the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. He holds a BA from St. Mary's University in Halifax. His research focuses on marine conservation planning in the Canadian Arctic.

Wolfgang Haider is Professor at the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. His areas of research encompass protected areas planning and management, nature conservation, outdoor recreation and tourism, and human dimensions. He also specializes in choice modeling and other behavioural theories. Prior to his appointment at REM in 1998, he was Social Research Scientist with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in Thunder Bay, Ontario. He can be reached at [e-mail]

Sabine Jessen is National Manager of the Oceans and Freshwater Lakes program at the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. She is also an adjunct professor at the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. She is currently a PhD student in the Department of Geography at SFU where she is conducting an international comparative study on marine protected area establishment.