I would say that things have definitely changed over the years.
Going back to one of the earlier questions, when I first started working on Peary caribou, it was somewhat unique. In the published scientific literature, North America has been criticized with respect to some of its recovery objectives for species at risk, because the bar is set too low to allow for indigenous rights, etc. One thing we did with Peary caribou is set the recovery objective for the species in partnership with our Inuit partners. If you look at the Peary caribou recovery strategy and those recovery objectives, you'll see that there's a specific statement in there that speaks to allowing sustainable Inuit harvests. It's about maintaining populations not at the minimum to prevent them from going extinct but at a higher level to allow Inuit communities to harvest those populations. That's one example of where we set the bar a bit higher.
We've continued to build on that. For example, identification of critical habitat—the habitat you want to protect for species at risk—has partially been fulfilled for Peary caribou. Peary caribou have to move between islands, so sea ice is a very important part of their habitat. For some people, it's a little difficult to make that relationship between sea ice and habitat, but it is habitat for them. There is no western science to inform where these species move between islands. The protection and identification of that critical habitat in terms of sea ice is based solely on Inuit knowledge. That is their contribution.