Recent reports on conflict prevention agreements have commented on their success on Alaska`s north coast. [6] This is partly attributed to the fact that they combine traditional knowledge and Western science in order to create thresholds that could affect Greenland whales and the traditional hunters who depend on them for a living. These agreements appear to have great potential for implementation in Canada and appear to be well suited to areas where the regulatory system in Canada does not fully meet local or traditional needs. In 1977, the International Whaling Commission expressed concern about the low population of Greenland whales. [11] His report explicitly cited the future expansion of offshore oil and gas production as a risk to the Bowheads. [12] At that time, Inuit subsistence hunters knew that Greenland whales were sensitive to noise, movement, and even anthropogenic odors. [13] The increase in activity would affect their hunting. Traditional hunters had noticed that boat traffic, seismic exploration and drilling led to migratory whales being distracted from shore and distracted out of their reach. This type of traditional knowledge has been incorporated into conflict prevention agreements since the agreements were first negotiated and is likely contributing to its success in the Arctic. Turner and Weed classify concealment as one of the three main types of reactions to conflict and describe Concealer as those who take no risks and therefore say nothing and hide their opinions and feelings. Concealers are divided into three types; Namely:[2] The term „conflict prevention“ is sometimes used to describe conflict prevention. Bacal criticizes this use of terms by asking that conflict prevention is a means of responding to conflicts that tries to avoid a direct confrontation with this problem. Methods of doing this may be to change the topic, postpone a discussion until later, or simply not raise the topic of the dispute.

Conflict prevention can be used as a temporary time-creating measure or as a permanent means of eliminating an issue. This last point cannot be distinguished from a simple tolerance of the other party, insofar as the person who avoids the conflict subordinates his own desires to the party with whom he has the conflict. However, conflict prevention can also take the form of withdrawal from the relationship. Therefore, avoidance scenarios can be either winning prizes, tickets, or maybe even win-win if stopping the relationship is the best method to solve the problem. In the workplace, managers sometimes avoid directly managing conflicts between colleagues by simply separating them. In workplaces and other situations where continuous contact with a person cannot be interrupted, workers can avoid confrontations as too risky or unpleasant and instead avoid confronting the situation directly by focusing on others or using passive aggressive attack methods such as gossip and gossip. Unresolved conflicts in the workplace have been associated with misunderstandings due to confusion or refusal to cooperate, increased stress, reduced creative cooperation and team problem solving, as well as mistrust. [5] According to an article in the East Bay Business Times, some possible outcomes of the region`s leaders may include decreased ice cover[1], decreased global biodiversity[2] and socio-economic problems[3], in order to increase the risk of conflicts between wildlife and industry around the world and particularly in the Arctic. . . .