People, knowledge and co-management in the North

The North is not a wilderness empty of people. Indigenous peoples have lived in the boreal forest and Arctic for thousands of years, and their knowledge of animals, plants, ice, fire and weather is detailed, tested over generations and increasingly recognized in science and management. Northern ecology cannot be done well without them. This lesson looks at Indigenous knowledge systems and how they relate to science, at land claims agreements and co-management institutions that share authority over northern lands and wildlife, at Indigenous Guardians and community monitoring, and at the practical and ethical principles for research partnerships. BIOL-367 introduced Indigenous-led conservation and protected areas; here the focus is on governance and knowledge in northern ecology.

Indigenous knowledge systems

Indigenous knowledge, sometimes called traditional ecological knowledge or Indigenous traditional knowledge, is a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief about the relationships of living beings with one another and with their environment, handed down through generations and continually renewed. It is held by people, embedded in language, place names, stories and practice, and inseparable from values and responsibilities toward the land. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, often translated as that which has long been known by Inuit, includes principles such as respect for the land and animals and decision-making through consensus, and the Government of Nunavut has committed to incorporating it into its policies. Dene, Cree, Gwich'in, Iñupiat, Yup'ik and many other peoples have their own systems and terms.

Indigenous knowledge contributes observations over spans of time and space that science rarely matches: the behavior of caribou herds over many decades, changes in sea ice that matter for safe travel, the timing of fish runs and bird migrations, the condition of animals at harvest, and the locations of calving grounds, denning sites and travel routes. It also contributes understanding of relationships and causes, for example linking caribou declines to past cycles described in oral histories, or recognizing that animals respond to disrespect and disturbance. Hunters' observations of thin, sick or abnormal animals have often provided the first warning of disease or contamination.

Bringing Indigenous knowledge and science together is not simply a matter of adding interview data to a scientific study. The two knowledge systems have different methods, standards of evidence, ways of validating knowledge and purposes. The Mi'kmaw concept of Etuaptmumk, or Two-Eyed Seeing, introduced by Elder Albert Marshall, describes learning to see with the strengths of Indigenous knowledge from one eye and the strengths of Western science from the other, and using both together. In practice this means involving knowledge holders from the start in framing questions, designing studies, interpreting results and deciding how findings are used, rather than extracting knowledge to fit a predetermined study.

Land claims and self-government

In Alaska, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 settled Indigenous land claims by conveying about 44 million acres (about 18 million hectares) and nearly one billion dollars to twelve regional and more than 200 village corporations, rather than creating reservations, a model unlike any other in the United States. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 then set aside more than 100 million acres in national parks, wildlife refuges and other conservation units and established a priority for rural subsistence use of fish and wildlife on federal lands. Tribal governments, recognized as sovereign by the federal government, participate in management through co-management agreements and advisory councils, while the division of authority between the state, which manages fish and game on state lands, and federal agencies has produced long-running debates over subsistence priority.

Co-management

Co-management means that Indigenous governments or organizations and Crown or state agencies share decision-making about natural resources. Its forms range from advisory boards, whose recommendations governments may or may not follow, to boards with legal authority to make decisions that governments can reject only for specified reasons. Effective co-management combines Indigenous knowledge and scientific monitoring, builds trust and local capacity over time, and can resolve conflicts that top-down management cannot.

In Alaska, co-management bodies include the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council, which brings together Alaska Native representatives, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state to regulate spring and summer subsistence harvest of birds and eggs; the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, which manages the bowhead whale subsistence hunt under a cooperative agreement with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within quotas set by the International Whaling Commission; the Eskimo Walrus Commission; and the Western Arctic Caribou Herd Working Group. Regional advisory councils advise the Federal Subsistence Board on harvest regulations on federal lands.

Co-management has well-documented successes. Bowhead whale management in Alaska is a classic case: in the late 1970s the International Whaling Commission proposed ending the Iñupiat and Yup'ik bowhead hunt because of scientific estimates of a very small population. Whalers disputed those estimates, saying that whales migrated under the ice where observers on the ice edge could not see them. A joint program using hydrophones and visual counts from the ice confirmed the whalers' knowledge and showed a much larger population, and the hunt continued under quotas managed by the whalers themselves. The Bering–Chukchi–Beaufort bowhead population has since grown substantially.

Indigenous Guardians and community monitoring

Indigenous Guardians programs employ community members to monitor and care for their lands and waters: tracking wildlife, testing water, patrolling against illegal activity, maintaining cultural sites, monitoring development and climate change, and teaching youth on the land. In Canada, the federal government began funding Indigenous Guardians programs in 2017, and dozens of First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities now run them. Community-based monitoring networks, such as ice monitoring programs that combine hunters' observations with instruments, help communities travel safely as sea ice becomes less predictable. Platforms such as the SmartICE program, founded in Nunatsiavut and Nunavut, combine sensors on and under the ice with knowledge of local ice travelers.

Combining community observations with scientific surveys can improve estimates and decisions. For example, harvest decisions for a caribou herd need estimates of population size, survival and recruitment, and an understanding of how much harvest the herd can sustain. Community observations of body condition, calf numbers and herd distribution can flag changes between scientific surveys, which may be several years apart.

# How much harvest can a herd sustain? Monte Carlo with uncertain vital rates (synthetic values).
import numpy as np
rng = np.random.default_rng(909)
n = 20_000
N = rng.normal(24_000, 3_000, n)                          # herd size estimate and its uncertainty
s_f = np.clip(rng.normal(0.89, 0.025, n), 0, 1)          # adult female survival without harvest
calves = np.clip(rng.normal(36, 6, n), 0, None) / 100     # calves per cow surviving to one year
f_frac = 0.55                                              # share of the herd that is adult female
def lam(harvest_females):
    h = harvest_females / (N * f_frac)                     # harvest rate of adult females
    return s_f * (1 - h) + calves * 0.5 * s_f              # female growth rate: survivors plus female recruits
for H in (0, 150, 300, 600):
    l = lam(H)
    print(f"female harvest {H:>3}/yr: median lambda {np.median(l):.3f}, P(lambda < 1) = {np.mean(l < 1):.2f}")
target = np.array([np.mean(lam(H) < 1) for H in range(0, 1001, 10)])
H_ok = np.arange(0, 1001, 10)[target <= 0.25].max()
print(f"largest female harvest with at most a 25% chance of decline: about {H_ok} per year")

female harvest   0/yr: median lambda 1.050, P(lambda < 1) = 0.10
female harvest 150/yr: median lambda 1.039, P(lambda < 1) = 0.16
female harvest 300/yr: median lambda 1.029, P(lambda < 1) = 0.23
female harvest 600/yr: median lambda 1.009, P(lambda < 1) = 0.42
largest female harvest with at most a 25% chance of decline: about 340 per year

The model is simplified, treating only females and ignoring age structure and density dependence, but it captures how managers reason: harvest of adult females lowers growth most, uncertainty means there is always some chance of decline, and the acceptable level of that risk is a value judgment that co-management boards must make together with communities. In practice many northern harvest plans focus on bulls and protect cows when herds are declining, and Indigenous harvesting rules, such as not hunting the leaders of a herd or not harvesting during calving, often encode similar principles.

The output shows three things. Even with no harvest there is about a 10 percent chance that the herd is declining, simply because the vital rates are uncertain. Each additional 150 females harvested lowers the median growth rate by about one percentage point. And a board willing to accept at most a one-in-four chance of decline could allow roughly 340 adult females a year, or many more bulls, while a more cautious board choosing a one-in-ten risk would allow essentially no harvest of cows. Better survival and recruitment estimates, from more collars or community observations of calves, would narrow the uncertainty and let the board choose with more confidence.

Knowledge of a changing North

Northern residents are often the first to see environmental change, and their observations have been documented in projects across the Arctic since the 1990s. Inuit hunters in Nunavut and Nunavik report thinner, less predictable sea ice, later freeze-up and earlier break-up, new species such as killer whales appearing more often in Hudson Bay, and changes in the taste and condition of seals and fish. Gwich'in and Iñupiat observers describe shifting caribou migration routes and timing, and more frequent freezing rain. Dene and Cree communities report drying lakes and wetlands, changing berry crops and more intense fires and smoke. These observations matter for safety and food security as well as for science, because travel on ice and harvesting on the land depend on reliable conditions. They have shaped international assessments: the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment of 2004 and later Arctic Council reports included chapters on Indigenous perspectives, and the Inuit Circumpolar Council has pushed for Indigenous knowledge to stand alongside science in Arctic policy.

Research ethics and data sovereignty

Research in the North has a troubled history of researchers arriving, collecting samples and knowledge, and leaving without consent, benefit or communication of results. Today, research with Indigenous communities follows ethical frameworks that require free, prior and informed consent, community engagement throughout, respect for Indigenous governance and benefit to communities.

In the United States, tribal sovereignty means that research on tribal lands or with tribal members requires approval from tribal governments, many of which operate their own research review boards in addition to university institutional review boards. The CARE principles for Indigenous data governance, collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility and ethics, developed by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance, complement the FAIR data principles discussed in BIOL-430. In Alaska, organizations such as the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and regional tribal consortia set expectations for research partnerships, and federal agencies have adopted guidance on including Indigenous knowledge in decisions.